Puerto Rico, the 51st state

[old_gregg]

OK, so if he failed his journalistic obligation (whatever that should be in this instance) please share so I have the opportunity to be appropriately outraged.

not saying that happened here

...

[Flystripper]

hbo news commentator is smug and wrong

...

[old_gregg]

...

comment on the propensity of hbo news folks to be wrong, not about his wrongness on this particular issue (which, again, i have no idea about)

[Non Sequitur]

It's not really his job to be fair and balanced. He just needs to be thought provoking and funny while getting ratings. I am interested in the counter arguments to his funny and interesting rant, so if you would like to illuminate us i would appreciate it.

It was funny, and I'd love to hear the argument explaining why we offer them the right to fight in our military while not recognizing other rights.

[falafel]

It was funny, and I'd love to hear the argument explaining why we offer them the right to fight in our military while not recognizing other rights.

.... yeah, where is that counter-argument? Is it related to taxation? If I recall correctly, Puerto Ricans do not pay income tax.

I love Oliver. I think his rants are hilarious and seem to ring true to me most of the time.

[Katy Lied]

First of all, these island territories make third world wages, so admitting them as states would cause 99% of their entire population to go directly onto the US welfare rolls. This would roil the existing welfare standards, because why would the government give you welfare if you're a minority family in East LA making $12,000 per capita when there is a new influx of thousands of families that make half of that? We would have to re-index welfare standards, moving aid from existing recipients in urban areas to offshore populations. The problem is that $6K per capita per year is middle class in Samoa, certainly no one dies of poverty on this amount right now. So the US would give additional aid to middle income Samoans by taking it from the poor in the US Mainland. (Although the population is relatively small- like filipinos, samoan expats outnumber the locals-- the expats could return home if the standard of living approaches that of Hawaii or the West Coast.)

Samoa has a standard of living that is definitely close to second world levels. But it works for them at this time. Making them part of the US represents a wholesale transfer of wealth from the US to the island, and nothing would be coming back into the US coffers. India has a much lower standard of living than samoa- should we annex India to bring their per capita income in line with the US?

The reason why so many soldiers come from the PR or Am Samoa or Guam is not for an inherent sense of duty toward the US. It's basic economics. The average per capita income in AS is just a little over $6,000. A basic 17-year old army grunt with no education or training starts out at three times the per capita income. This would be like starting US army soldiers fresh from high school in Utah at a salary of $66,000. This doesn't count bonuses, allowances and other army benefits. Also, soldiers have a path to US citizenship not available to anyone else. And even when you retire from the military at age 37, your retirement benefits are greater than the per capital income of non-soldiers on the island.

There is no historical exploitation of the Samoan Islands that needs to be rectified (at least, not by the US). American Samoa came into the hands of the US during WWII, when certain chiefs volunteered the use of their militarily significant deep water harbor, in return for military protection. So yes, the US got to use Pago Pago Bay for ships, but if the US had not taken the harbor under it's jurisdiction, the samoans were keenly aware that the Japanese may have conquered them and taken their harbor forcibly. This would have been bad for the US, but ever worse for the Samoans.

Because those born in AS are not automatically US citizens, they don't protect their borders well, and every pregnant woman in the independent republic of Samoa (Western Samoa, not American Samoa) who can afford to do so takes the boat the short distance between islands to have their baby at LBJ hospital in American Samoa. I think it's because of the better health care there, plus pre natal and birth medical care is free for any woman. This means that not only will the US have to support all of the citizens of American Samoa, but a large percentage of those living in Western Samoa as well- most of them would move to AS for the support. With their birth certificates as proof.

I think a lot of small countries would like to join the US, but just wanting to join is not enough justification. A chief of a mountain tribe in Borneo cannot cede his village to the US and get everyone put on the US welfare rolls, without a common history or cultural experience. I think this is what the supreme court decision is about, although the wording certainly seems racist. The current citizens of the US should have some say in anyone joining. Alternatively, if we in the US feel that another country has incurred a large debt to support the US, perhaps that would sway the citizenry to their cause. This is what happened to Hawaii, who had to live through the Pearl Harbor bombings and the toll of WWII and after for 18 years before becoming a state.

[falafel]

I didn't read all of that Katy, but it seems that most, if not all, of your comments are directed to making these territories states, which is not what Oliver is addressing. Do you any of your points stand if we only extend the right to vote to these "U.S. Nationals"?

[Katy Lied]

I'm less opposed to giving them the vote. If they want it- ok. But what would they do with it if they aren't "real" citizens? If you are of italian descent, would you care that you get the opportunity to vote for or against Silvio Berlusconi? (aside from Pellegrino who might want to vote no).

[falafel]

I'm less opposed to giving them the vote. If they want it- ok. But what would they do with it if they aren't "real" citizens? If you are of italian descent, would you care that you get the opportunity to vote for or against Silvio Berlusconi? (aside from Pellegrino who might want to vote no).

Being of Italian descent but being a citizen of the U.S. is not a good analogy here. These people are living in U.S. territories. Congress makes laws that directly affect their lives. They serve in the U.S. military. They have U.S. passports. Yet they do not have the ability to cast a vote for a candidate who will represent their interests in that same Congress.

[Pelado]

It was funny, and I'd love to hear the argument explaining why we offer them the right to fight in our military while not recognizing other rights.

To prevent Americans with full rights from being killed in battle.

[Non Sequitur]

First of all, these island territories make third world wages, so admitting them as states would cause 99% of their entire population to go directly onto the US welfare rolls. This would roil the existing welfare standards, because why would the government give you welfare if you're a minority family in East LA making $12,000 per capita when there is a new influx of thousands of families that make half of that? We would have to re-index welfare standards, moving aid from existing recipients in urban areas to offshore populations. The problem is that $6K per capita per year is middle class in Samoa, certainly no one dies of poverty on this amount right now. So the US would give additional aid to middle income Samoans by taking it from the poor in the US Mainland. (Although the population is relatively small- like filipinos, samoan expats outnumber the locals-- the expats could return home if the standard of living approaches that of Hawaii or the West Coast.)

Samoa has a standard of living that is definitely close to second world levels. But it works for them at this time. Making them part of the US represents a wholesale transfer of wealth from the US to the island, and nothing would be coming back into the US coffers. India has a much lower standard of living than samoa- should we annex India to bring their per capita income in line with the US?

The reason why so many soldiers come from the PR or Am Samoa or Guam is not for an inherent sense of duty toward the US. It's basic economics. The average per capita income in AS is just a little over $6,000. A basic 17-year old army grunt with no education or training starts out at three times the per capita income. This would be like starting US army soldiers fresh from high school in Utah at a salary of $66,000. This doesn't count bonuses, allowances and other army benefits. Also, soldiers have a path to US citizenship not available to anyone else. And even when you retire from the military at age 37, your retirement benefits are greater than the per capital income of non-soldiers on the island.

There is no historical exploitation of the Samoan Islands that needs to be rectified (at least, not by the US). American Samoa came into the hands of the US during WWII, when certain chiefs volunteered the use of their militarily significant deep water harbor, in return for military protection. So yes, the US got to use Pago Pago Bay for ships, but if the US had not taken the harbor under it's jurisdiction, the samoans were keenly aware that the Japanese may have conquered them and taken their harbor forcibly. This would have been bad for the US, but ever worse for the Samoans.

Because those born in AS are not automatically US citizens, they don't protect their borders well, and every pregnant woman in the independent republic of Samoa (Western Samoa, not American Samoa) who can afford to do so takes the boat the short distance between islands to have their baby at LBJ hospital in American Samoa. I think it's because of the better health care there, plus pre natal and birth medical care is free for any woman. This means that not only will the US have to support all of the citizens of American Samoa, but a large percentage of those living in Western Samoa as well- most of them would move to AS for the support. With their birth certificates as proof.

I think a lot of small countries would like to join the US, but just wanting to join is not enough justification. A chief of a mountain tribe in Borneo cannot cede his village to the US and get everyone put on the US welfare rolls, without a common history or cultural experience. I think this is what the supreme court decision is about, although the wording certainly seems racist. The current citizens of the US should have some say in anyone joining. Alternatively, if we in the US feel that another country has incurred a large debt to support the US, perhaps that would sway the citizenry to their cause. This is what happened to Hawaii, who had to live through the Pearl Harbor bombings and the toll of WWII and after for 18 years before becoming a state.

It's expensive to have a mistress. We want to plant our flag and not have any of the responsibility that goes along with it.

[wuapinmon]

If Puerto Ricans are citizens, then anyone born under American jurisdiction should be a citizen.

[Pelado]

First of all, these island territories make third world wages, so admitting them as states would cause 99% of their entire population to go directly onto the US welfare rolls. This would roil the existing welfare standards, because why would the government give you welfare if you're a minority family in East LA making $12,000 per capita when there is a new influx of thousands of families that make half of that? We would have to re-index welfare standards, moving aid from existing recipients in urban areas to offshore populations. The problem is that $6K per capita per year is middle class in Samoa, certainly no one dies of poverty on this amount right now. So the US would give additional aid to middle income Samoans by taking it from the poor in the US Mainland. (Although the population is relatively small- like filipinos, samoan expats outnumber the locals-- the expats could return home if the standard of living approaches that of Hawaii or the West Coast.)

Samoa has a standard of living that is definitely close to second world levels. But it works for them at this time. Making them part of the US represents a wholesale transfer of wealth from the US to the island, and nothing would be coming back into the US coffers. India has a much lower standard of living than samoa- should we annex India to bring their per capita income in line with the US?

The reason why so many soldiers come from the PR or Am Samoa or Guam is not for an inherent sense of duty toward the US. It's basic economics. The average per capita income in AS is just a little over $6,000. A basic 17-year old army grunt with no education or training starts out at three times the per capita income. This would be like starting US army soldiers fresh from high school in Utah at a salary of $66,000. This doesn't count bonuses, allowances and other army benefits. Also, soldiers have a path to US citizenship not available to anyone else. And even when you retire from the military at age 37, your retirement benefits are greater than the per capital income of non-soldiers on the island.

There is no historical exploitation of the Samoan Islands that needs to be rectified (at least, not by the US). American Samoa came into the hands of the US during WWII, when certain chiefs volunteered the use of their militarily significant deep water harbor, in return for military protection. So yes, the US got to use Pago Pago Bay for ships, but if the US had not taken the harbor under it's jurisdiction, the samoans were keenly aware that the Japanese may have conquered them and taken their harbor forcibly. This would have been bad for the US, but ever worse for the Samoans.

Because those born in AS are not automatically US citizens, they don't protect their borders well, and every pregnant woman in the independent republic of Samoa (Western Samoa, not American Samoa) who can afford to do so takes the boat the short distance between islands to have their baby at LBJ hospital in American Samoa. I think it's because of the better health care there, plus pre natal and birth medical care is free for any woman. This means that not only will the US have to support all of the citizens of American Samoa, but a large percentage of those living in Western Samoa as well- most of them would move to AS for the support. With their birth certificates as proof.

I think a lot of small countries would like to join the US, but just wanting to join is not enough justification. A chief of a mountain tribe in Borneo cannot cede his village to the US and get everyone put on the US welfare rolls, without a common history or cultural experience. I think this is what the supreme court decision is about, although the wording certainly seems racist. The current citizens of the US should have some say in anyone joining. Alternatively, if we in the US feel that another country has incurred a large debt to support the US, perhaps that would sway the citizenry to their cause. This is what happened to Hawaii, who had to live through the Pearl Harbor bombings and the toll of WWII and after for 18 years before becoming a state.

Do the other commonwealths/territories fully participate in the federal welfare apparatus?

[frank ryan]

Do the other commonwealths/territories fully participate in the federal welfare apparatus?

Not sure about TANF (welfare) but American Samoa already participates in food stamps and medicaid.