Willravel

Puerto Rico belongs to the US but is not part of the US. Same with Samoa, Guam, the Marianas and the Virgin Islands. While they each have their own government, that government answers to the US government despite the fact that they have no representatives in the US government, such as Senators and Congressmen.

Why is it that countries are in this odd middle ground between statehood and independence? Do you believe it's fair? I'm sure some of these people are fine with their position, some wish for independence and some wish for statehood, but aside from that, is this something you personally agree with? If so, why? If not, why not?

Personally, I'm having trouble finding my footing on the issue. Overall it seems that the citizens of these places are happy, but I've found happiness isn't necessarily a good meter by which to measure what I find right and wrong. If I were in one of these places, I wonder if I'd be clamoring for change. If California was one such unincorporated territory, where I lived under the authority of the US government but found no representation in it, I would probably be at least a little concerned. Things might be fine, the rulers tending to their ruling responsibly, taxation at a reasonable level, and local and state government could be functioning well enough that there aren't any major problems, but an empire regardless of how functional is still an empire. I'd much prefer a federation or republic to an empire regardless of the troubles that come from allowing the people to rule.

Seaver

They've voted on this issue many times in Guam and Puerto Rico. They don't want to get statehood, being in their present state is pretty ideal for them. They pay no federal income tax, yet enjoy the benefits of federal protection of military/investigations/etc. As far as representation goes, the population ensures that it would receive minimal effect for the overall tax burden one would pay into it. In addition, they receive VERY nice benefits through loopholes which drag in massive corporate investments. I'm against this standpoint as a whole, but I recognize it's great for Puerto Rico (especially considering their massive amounts of pharmesutical companies "located" there)

As far as I'm concerned is that it's a non-issue. As long as they occasionally vote on the issue to allow public discussion let them determine themselves.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Willravel

I'm intending to speak more broadly about the issue. Like I said, it does seem that at least Puerto Rico is happy as a collective population, as we've seen by their voting, but happiness doesn't speak to the ethics of their situation. I'm sure in the history of slavery, there have been happy slaves (an extreme example).

The state of being an unincorporated territory is a gray area, in my opinion.

highthief

Not really - the situation exists in many countries outside the US. In the UK, you have the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands which are sort of analogous. They enjoy certain rights within a partnership with the UK (like military protection) but have their own laws and systems of taxation. And it's been that way for many centuries to eveyone's mutual benefit.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Shell

...more than likely, no you wouldn't...and the reason i say that is because it's the culture of the people in those areas to be laid back and to not care. Or if they do care, they are on a different time-clock than the rest of the world for making any changes. I have visited the Virgin Islands and everything moves in slow-motion...it's just their culture. It really is all about "don't worry be happy"...an attitude probably fueled by a large percentage of native islanders on "ganja" (marijuana, for those who haven't been there).

...when i was there, i remember waving down a ride with what i thought was a cab driver. Turns out he wasn't a cab driver, the inside of his car reeked of ganja, and he drove about 5 miles an hour to the hotel...talking the whole way about who knows what. Thankfully he was a peaceful soul and dropped me off safely.

(sorry tfp...is story-telling not allowed in Discussions?...it did have a point)

__________________
..."Say what you think. Those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" ~ Dr. Seuss

Rekna

The US just needs to eliminate the tax havens they provide to businesses. I have a feeling once those are removed those territories would be changing their tune about statehood pretty quickly.

Right now there is no reason for them to join the US. The get most of the benefits but don't pay any taxes.

Sen

Actually, all of the U.S. territories do have members of Congress. They are elected, and sworn but are called Delegates instead of Congressmen. They have all of the privileges of a Congressman, except the ability to vote on the Floor. They may speak, sponsor legislation, and I believe they can vote in Committee, but I might be wrong on that. They receive the same consideration as the District of Columbia. If you haven't seen it, Stephen Colbert does a "Better Know a District" segment and he interviewed Elanor Holmes-Norton who is the Delegate from D.C. You should check it out, it's both hilarious and informative.

Also, I believe both parties allow the territories to participate in the Presidential Primary process.

__________________
"I want to announce my presence with authority!"

"You want to what?"

"I want to announce my presence with authority!!"