House Republicans and Puerto Rico Governor agree to hold Puerto Rico statehood referendum.

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe, but if a side effect is that a whole bunch more people get the right to representation in government, I can't fault it.

[Titan Uranus]

I don't know why people are so confused about the motivations involved, here. This proposal is coming from the House Natural Resources Committee. It's backers include Rob Bishop (who has a history of wanting to overturn environmental protection regulations for the purpose of profit) and Don Young (who has called environmentalists un-American and said that oil spills are a "natural phenomena"). As has already been posted in this thread, after the hurricane a lot of land in Puerto Rico was bought up by mainland American firms. I think this has pretty apparent financial motivations, rather than anything political. It's about the rich getting richer.

Making Puerto Rico a state would make it harder, not easier, to exploit them.

As would allowing them to become an independent nation.

Quite frankly, "Status Quo" shouldn't even be an option on these referendums, no matter how many Puerto Ricans stupidly desire it.

[Zaune]

Quite frankly, "Status Quo" shouldn't even be an option on these referendums, no matter how many Puerto Ricans stupidly desire it.

Why not? Even if there's a strong case for the status quo being worse than either alternative, if you tell people they can only vote for the options someone else thinks they should vote for and not the option they actually want then what's the point in asking their opinion in the first place?

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know why people are so confused about the motivations involved, here. This proposal is coming from the House Natural Resources Committee. It's backers include Rob Bishop (who has a history of wanting to overturn environmental protection regulations for the purpose of profit) and Don Young (who has called environmentalists un-American and said that oil spills are a "natural phenomena"). As has already been posted in this thread, after the hurricane a lot of land in Puerto Rico was bought up by mainland American firms. I think this has pretty apparent financial motivations, rather than anything political. It's about the rich getting richer.

Making Puerto Rico a state would make it harder, not easier, to exploit them.

As would allowing them to become an independent nation.

Quite frankly, "Status Quo" shouldn't even be an option on these referendums, no matter how many Puerto Ricans stupidly desire it.

I'm not saying I disagree that status quo should be thrown out from the get-go, but saying that the wishes of Puerto Ricans should be ignored because they're stupid is rather imperialistic in tone.

Also, to be realistic, independence isn't going to be on the table. The US Congress is not going to set the precedent of allowing a territory to secede, and with very good reason- because if they do, a lot of other secession movements are going to pick up steam. Including the possibility of blue states (particularly Vermont and California) trying to bolt if (God help us) Trump wins reelection in 2020.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Also Alaska's secessionist movement, the AIP.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Making Puerto Rico a state would make it harder, not easier, to exploit them.

Who says the goal is even to exploit them? As heartless as corporations can be, their motives are always financial; often, they benefit from exploitation, but not necessarily as a rule. If corporations decide that it is more in their financial interests to not exploit them (or, at least, exploit them in a different way, or otherwise make a change that from a naive perspective could be construed as less exploitative), they will do it.

Again, look at the individual politicians that are actually involved in backing this proposal. Look at their voting histories. Look at their policies. Notice that none have constituencies with a high Hispanic population, meaning that it is unlikely that they are doing this to win votes within their districts. And, as has been stated in this thread, it is unclear what motivation the party has to support this, making it unlikely they are simply acting under orders from higher-ups within the GOP (and if it really were the party behind it, you would expect them to be approaching it from different avenues, with more public aplomb, as opposed to a relatively low impact letter coming out of a relatively minor House committee). Unless you are suggesting that all of them spontaneously grew a heart like the Grinch and are supporting this purely out of a sense of moral right, the most parsimonious explanation is that their is some set of business interests that have decided they stand to benefit if Puerto Rico is made a state.

I could be wrong, but it is the explanation that best fits the facts as we currently have them.

[houser2112]

I think your suggestion to "follow the money" is the most likely to lead to a definitive answer to why they're doing this, but I still think that admitting what looks like it will be a Democrat-supporting state would outweigh the benefits to some businesses.

As of the 2010 census, PR had 3.7M people, roughly equivalent to Oklahoma (5 House reps, 2 Senators, 7 EC votes). The Republicans can probably afford to give up House reps due to gerrymandering, but their margins in Senate seats and Electoral College votes are thin enough as it is. Granting boons to business in the short term is myopic thinking when it may upset the Republicans' ability to make policy at all in the future.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think your suggestion to "follow the money" is the most likely to lead to a definitive answer to why they're doing this, but I still think that admitting what looks like it will be a Democrat-supporting state would outweigh the benefits to some businesses.

As of the 2010 census, PR had 3.7M people, roughly equivalent to Oklahoma (5 House reps, 2 Senators, 7 EC votes). The Republicans can probably afford to give up House reps due to gerrymandering, but their margins in Senate seats and Electoral College votes are thin enough as it is.

Many Puerto Ricans are socially conservative. And the Republican Party has a fairly strong tradition of attracting Hispanic votes in states like Florida. It doesn't seem like a huge gamble that they would do well in elections there, especially if you add on any goodwill tendered by supporting their bid for statehood. Of course, the sharp turn of the Republican Party towards Trumpism likely puts a wrench in these calculations, but still. It isn't completely out of the realm of possibility that PR could be a Republican-supporting state. I'm having a hard time finding numbers on it, one way or the other. From what I can gather online, the political party in Puerto Rico that is the predominant supporter of statehood is the more conservative party; so there does seem to be some degree of ideological alignment there.

Granting boons to business in the short term is myopic thinking when it may upset the Republicans' ability to make policy at all in the future.

Well, I never accused them of having a GOOD plan.

Besides, it's not like American businessmen and investors have much of a history of long-term thinking with these kinds of things. Short-term profit seems to be the driving factor behind the majority of American business and political decision-making.

[Titan Uranus]

I don't know why people are so confused about the motivations involved, here. This proposal is coming from the House Natural Resources Committee. It's backers include Rob Bishop (who has a history of wanting to overturn environmental protection regulations for the purpose of profit) and Don Young (who has called environmentalists un-American and said that oil spills are a "natural phenomena"). As has already been posted in this thread, after the hurricane a lot of land in Puerto Rico was bought up by mainland American firms. I think this has pretty apparent financial motivations, rather than anything political. It's about the rich getting richer.

Making Puerto Rico a state would make it harder, not easier, to exploit them.

As would allowing them to become an independent nation.

Quite frankly, "Status Quo" shouldn't even be an option on these referendums, no matter how many Puerto Ricans stupidly desire it.

I'm not saying I disagree that status quo should be thrown out from the get-go, but saying that the wishes of Puerto Ricans should be ignored because they're stupid is rather imperialistic in tone.

Also, to be realistic, independence isn't going to be on the table. The US Congress is not going to set the precedent of allowing a territory to secede, and with very good reason- because if they do, a lot of other secession movements are going to pick up steam. Including the possibility of blue states (particularly Vermont and California) trying to bolt if (God help us) Trump wins reelection in 2020.

What are you talking about? Many former US Territories have become independent.

It's an unpolitic way of phrasing it. The correct way is to first hold a referendum for status quo or change, and when change wins, hold another referendum on what sort of change.

Making Puerto Rico a state would make it harder, not easier, to exploit them.

Who says the goal is even to exploit them? As heartless as corporations can be, their motives are always financial; often, they benefit from exploitation, but not necessarily as a rule. If corporations decide that it is more in their financial interests to not exploit them (or, at least, exploit them in a different way, or otherwise make a change that from a naive perspective could be construed as less exploitative), they will do it.

Again, look at the individual politicians that are actually involved in backing this proposal. Look at their voting histories. Look at their policies. Notice that none have constituencies with a high Hispanic population, meaning that it is unlikely that they are doing this to win votes within their districts. And, as has been stated in this thread, it is unclear what motivation the party has to support this, making it unlikely they are simply acting under orders from higher-ups within the GOP (and if it really were the party behind it, you would expect them to be approaching it from different avenues, with more public aplomb, as opposed to a relatively low impact letter coming out of a relatively minor House committee). Unless you are suggesting that all of them spontaneously grew a heart like the Grinch and are supporting this purely out of a sense of moral right, the most parsimonious explanation is that their is some set of business interests that have decided they stand to benefit if Puerto Rico is made a state.

I could be wrong, but it is the explanation that best fits the facts as we currently have them.

True, but I don't know enough about the senators in question. It could be something as simple as nationalism. It'd be a really forward-looking corporation to bank on gaining more from an increased standard of living in Puerto Rico than they'd lose from stricter regulations.

Quite frankly, "Status Quo" shouldn't even be an option on these referendums, no matter how many Puerto Ricans stupidly desire it.

Why not? Even if there's a strong case for the status quo being worse than either alternative, if you tell people they can only vote for the options someone else thinks they should vote for and not the option they actually want then what's the point in asking their opinion in the first place?

It forces every American to be party to a fundamentally immoral arrangement with our own countrymen out of shear inertia. They are perfectly free to chose non-immoral options, as well as the fundamentally immoral option of vassalage.

[Ralin]

It forces every American to be party to a fundamentally immoral arrangement with our own countrymen out of shear inertia. They are perfectly free to chose non-immoral options, as well as the fundamentally immoral option of vassalage.

Puerto Rico: You have been forced into an exploitative colonial relationship against your collective will going back a century. During the recent hurricane disaster you were mistreated, denied desperately needed aid and given over to profiteering vultures. Now we have unilaterally decided that your current status and the rights and privileges that come with it are unacceptable and you are required to chose between either complete independence or becoming a province of your former colonial overlord. It doesn't matter whether you prefer the status quo or any other option because we (your colonial overlord) have decided you shouldn't be allowed that choice.

PS, did you ever get the electricity working again? No we're not going to help with that.

^Because that's not immoral and incredibly condescending to the Puerto Ricans.

Given how much America has wronged the place it should go without saying that they're entitled to the largest voice in deciding these things.

[The Romulan Republic]

Frankly, while I am not a support of secession movements in general, I think it is a remarkable testament to the patriotism of Puerto Ricans that they're not demanding independence en mass after how the Trump Regime has treated them.