5 ms·

We owe voting rights and statehood to the island nations we colonized during the past century.

eesmith 7y ago
Isn't that a tricky issue? Take American Samoa. As I understand it, many American Samoans don't want to change the current legal system. Among other things that would change, should it be a US state, is that "About 90 percent of the land is communally owned" and currently "It is against the law for any person whose blood is less than one-half Samoan to own land in American Samoa" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoa#Land_ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoa#Land_ownership . With statehood, such laws would be illegal under the US Constitution. Also, the populations of Northern Mariana Islands is ~55K, of American Samoa is ~55K, of US Virgin Islands is ~105K, and of Guam is ~170K. The least populated US state is Wyoming at ~580K. If each became a state, that's 8 Senators and 4 voting members of the House, giving those states 12/(435+108) = 2% of the votes in Congress, for 0.1% of the population.
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  Yes, it's a tricky issue, but I believe that the evidence is clear, if painful due to history. First, as a general principle, we ought not to have any sort of second-class citizen. Those who live under Uncle Sam's umbrella, even under the beach umbrella at the seaside house, should enjoy His protection and benefits. American Samoa is the best example of a practice I find unconscionable: We allow and encourage American Samoans to serve in the armed forces. And, unlike in the films, service doesn't even guarantee citizenship. While I understand that the economic opportunities in mainland USA are lucrative for natives of Guam, FSM, or American Samoa, I believe that the military is predatory in its recruiting and unfairly targets unwitting young islanders. American Samoans are akin to Puerto Ricans in that their representation in Washington, DC is limited to a non-voting delegation. The past few years have shown the futility of hoping for non-voting delegations to shift legislators' opinions; we need for those delegates to have votes in order to effect legislative change. A final note about American Samoa is that, as I understand it, there is a movement for independence from both Western Samoa and the USA. I don't think that they have to be part of the USA if they don't want to belong! I merely don't want them to be disenfranchised. With that said, let's remember the history of Hawaii. It is a complicated and gnarled story, with monarchs, rebellions, colonialism, racism, banana republic, and finally statehood. It's only with statehood that Hawaii gained a strong tradition of spending public funds on preserving and understanding the history of the Hawaiians, and shifted the focus of government away from constant exploitation and segregation. It's not perfect, but I can't help but want the same guarantees and improvements for the people of Puerto Rico. Finally, yes, let's consider the House. Let's imagine that we implement the Wyoming rule: The House is reapportioned so that each Representative is worth the least populous state. (When the rule was named, guess who was least populated?) We'll set this at 55K for today. NMI and American Samoa get one, US Virgin Islands get 2, Guam gets 3, Wyoming gets 10. Alaska gets 13. California gets, uh, 719. Nope. Fun, but nope. A legislative body of over 5K people is not practical. Edit: Even better, what about Puerto Rico, population ~3M? They should have at least as much representation as dozens of other states with less population, shouldn't they? [2] I'm redoing the numbers below including Puerto Rico and DC. Let's try again. When Arizona and New Mexico first came into the Union, the law [0] allowed for new Representatives to be chosen, and for the size of the House to grow by one Representative per admitted state. Additionally, the law held the door open for increasing the size of the House incrementally after every census. However, by the time that Alaska and Hawaii were admitted, legislative gridlock had ruined this plan, and the House's size had become fixed by a different law [1]. The upshot of this history lesson is that, had we given one Representative to each new state after 1911, then we're talking about 22/(444+112) = 3.9%. Scary! But, had we not just continued to add Reps, but also diluted their strength by half (keeping in mind that Rep strength has tripled over the past century!) then we're still talking about 22/(888+112) = 2%. That sounds like a reasonable compromise, given that they currently have 0% and that we're talking about some 1-2% of the population. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories...
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Would it not be possible to guarantee first-class citizenship to Samoans without making Samoa a state?
    - 5555624 7y ago
      How do you define "first-class citizenship"? If it involves having voting representation in the House and Senate, there is no current mechanism other than statehood. Also, how do you handle the 10th Amendment? Which says powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States or the people. Territories are messy and we can do better.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    > I don't think that they have to be part of the USA if they don't want to belong! I merely don't want them to be disenfranchised. Right, but what if they want to stay as a dependent? Your original statement was that we owe statehood (and, now, independence) to them, not, we should let them decide if they want statehood. While the wording seems like a minor change, I think it's an important distinction. > let's remember the history of Hawaii As I understand it, one of the arguments in American Samoa against statehood is to avoid being like modern Hawaii. Eg, land ownership restrictions to native Samoans means that American Samoa, unlike Hawaii, is predominately populated by the indigenous people. https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-American-Samoa-want-independence https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-American-Samoa-want-indepen... > what about Puerto Rico I'm all for P.R. statehood. And D.C. statehood. Should the population decide. And with clear, solid restrictions on outsider influence in the debate and discussion elections. And a firm commitment to support the Puerto Rico no matter what happens - unlike the dire lack of commitment we have now. > When Arizona and New Mexico first came into the Union Note that NM's 1912 statehood did not result a "strong tradition of spending public funds on preserving and understanding the history of" New Mexico.
    - lidHanteyk 7y ago
      There is a curious paradox here: Because American Samoans aren't legally self-determining, they're unable to become legally self-determining. We have to interpret their desires for them, and we have to resist the urge to allow them to be less-than-citizens or to have diminished rights. New Mexico has a Department of Cultural Affairs. They have a budget of around $45mil/yr [0]. The Department was set up by the New Mexico Legislature. Puerto Rico has an Institute of Puerto Rican Culture ("Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña"). They are a government-owned corporation. They seem constantly stressed by their budget [2]. They have a budget of around $17mil/yr [1]. [0] http://www.newmexicoculture.org/about http://www.newmexicoculture.org/about [1] http://www.presupuesto.pr.gov/presupuestoRecomendado2018-2019/PresupuestosAgencias/Instituto%20de%20Cultura%20Puertorriquena.htm http://www.presupuesto.pr.gov/presupuestoRecomendado2018-201... [2] https://nasaa-arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/PR_2013-2017-Strategic-Plan.pdf https://nasaa-arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/PR_2013-20...
TMWNN 7y ago
No more than we did to any other English-speaking US territory in the 19th or 20th century that didn't have enough people for statehood. (And before you bring up Puerto Rico, a) it's not English-speaking and b) no, it's not true that its people have ever voted for statehood, whether in 2017 or any other year.) If Guam or USVI ever gets to a population closer to that of one of the smaller US states, and its people vote to apply for statehood, we'll talk then. Same goes for Greenland should the US buy it, hordes of Americans migrate to it, and it develops a substantial English-speaking population.
- gambiting 7y ago
  Why would English speaking have anything to do with applying for statehood?
  - TMWNN 7y ago
    Because English is vital to being part of a unified American culture. If the US annexed Canada, I would also not want Quebec as a state for the same reason. Either make it a territory or give it independence.
    - kanbara 7y ago
      That's completely untrue. The US has no national language, and bilingualism is something to encourage not suppress. There are 41 _million_ spanish speakers in the US. HI, AK, ND, LA, PR, NM all have more than english as an official language. The more language learning is taught, the more Americans of every type can appreciate other cultures, and the more new Americans feel supported in their communities. Take the nationalism elsewhere.
    - eesmith 7y ago
      I consider the current native speakers of New Mexican Spanish, whose family settled in New Mexico in the 1600s, to be equally a part of the "unified American culture" as you are. The same for the Amish who speak Pennsylvanian German, the Gullah speaking people, the Cajun speakers, and the many indigenous people of North America who speak Navajo, or Hawaiian, or language at home.

Isn't that a tricky issue? Take American Samoa. As I understand it, many American Samoans don't want to change the current legal system. Among other things that would change, should it be a US state, is that "About 90 percent of the land is communally owned" and currently "It is against the law for any person whose blood is less than one-half Samoan to own land in American Samoa" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoa#Land_ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoa#Land_ownership . With statehood, such laws would be illegal under the US Constitution. Also, the populations of Northern Mariana Islands is ~55K, of American Samoa is ~55K, of US Virgin Islands is ~105K, and of Guam is ~170K. The least populated US state is Wyoming at ~580K. If each became a state, that's 8 Senators and 4 voting members of the House, giving those states 12/(435+108) = 2% of the votes in Congress, for 0.1% of the population.

lidHanteyk 7y ago
Yes, it's a tricky issue, but I believe that the evidence is clear, if painful due to history. First, as a general principle, we ought not to have any sort of second-class citizen. Those who live under Uncle Sam's umbrella, even under the beach umbrella at the seaside house, should enjoy His protection and benefits. American Samoa is the best example of a practice I find unconscionable: We allow and encourage American Samoans to serve in the armed forces. And, unlike in the films, service doesn't even guarantee citizenship. While I understand that the economic opportunities in mainland USA are lucrative for natives of Guam, FSM, or American Samoa, I believe that the military is predatory in its recruiting and unfairly targets unwitting young islanders. American Samoans are akin to Puerto Ricans in that their representation in Washington, DC is limited to a non-voting delegation. The past few years have shown the futility of hoping for non-voting delegations to shift legislators' opinions; we need for those delegates to have votes in order to effect legislative change. A final note about American Samoa is that, as I understand it, there is a movement for independence from both Western Samoa and the USA. I don't think that they have to be part of the USA if they don't want to belong! I merely don't want them to be disenfranchised. With that said, let's remember the history of Hawaii. It is a complicated and gnarled story, with monarchs, rebellions, colonialism, racism, banana republic, and finally statehood. It's only with statehood that Hawaii gained a strong tradition of spending public funds on preserving and understanding the history of the Hawaiians, and shifted the focus of government away from constant exploitation and segregation. It's not perfect, but I can't help but want the same guarantees and improvements for the people of Puerto Rico. Finally, yes, let's consider the House. Let's imagine that we implement the Wyoming rule: The House is reapportioned so that each Representative is worth the least populous state. (When the rule was named, guess who was least populated?) We'll set this at 55K for today. NMI and American Samoa get one, US Virgin Islands get 2, Guam gets 3, Wyoming gets 10. Alaska gets 13. California gets, uh, 719. Nope. Fun, but nope. A legislative body of over 5K people is not practical. Edit: Even better, what about Puerto Rico, population ~3M? They should have at least as much representation as dozens of other states with less population, shouldn't they? [2] I'm redoing the numbers below including Puerto Rico and DC. Let's try again. When Arizona and New Mexico first came into the Union, the law [0] allowed for new Representatives to be chosen, and for the size of the House to grow by one Representative per admitted state. Additionally, the law held the door open for increasing the size of the House incrementally after every census. However, by the time that Alaska and Hawaii were admitted, legislative gridlock had ruined this plan, and the House's size had become fixed by a different law [1]. The upshot of this history lesson is that, had we given one Representative to each new state after 1911, then we're talking about 22/(444+112) = 3.9%. Scary! But, had we not just continued to add Reps, but also diluted their strength by half (keeping in mind that Rep strength has tripled over the past century!) then we're still talking about 22/(888+112) = 2%. That sounds like a reasonable compromise, given that they currently have 0% and that we're talking about some 1-2% of the population. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories...
- pjc50 7y ago
  Would it not be possible to guarantee first-class citizenship to Samoans without making Samoa a state?
  - 5555624 7y ago
    How do you define "first-class citizenship"? If it involves having voting representation in the House and Senate, there is no current mechanism other than statehood. Also, how do you handle the 10th Amendment? Which says powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States or the people. Territories are messy and we can do better.
- eesmith 7y ago
  > I don't think that they have to be part of the USA if they don't want to belong! I merely don't want them to be disenfranchised. Right, but what if they want to stay as a dependent? Your original statement was that we owe statehood (and, now, independence) to them, not, we should let them decide if they want statehood. While the wording seems like a minor change, I think it's an important distinction. > let's remember the history of Hawaii As I understand it, one of the arguments in American Samoa against statehood is to avoid being like modern Hawaii. Eg, land ownership restrictions to native Samoans means that American Samoa, unlike Hawaii, is predominately populated by the indigenous people. https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-American-Samoa-want-independence https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-American-Samoa-want-indepen... > what about Puerto Rico I'm all for P.R. statehood. And D.C. statehood. Should the population decide. And with clear, solid restrictions on outsider influence in the debate and discussion elections. And a firm commitment to support the Puerto Rico no matter what happens - unlike the dire lack of commitment we have now. > When Arizona and New Mexico first came into the Union Note that NM's 1912 statehood did not result a "strong tradition of spending public funds on preserving and understanding the history of" New Mexico.
  - lidHanteyk 7y ago
    There is a curious paradox here: Because American Samoans aren't legally self-determining, they're unable to become legally self-determining. We have to interpret their desires for them, and we have to resist the urge to allow them to be less-than-citizens or to have diminished rights. New Mexico has a Department of Cultural Affairs. They have a budget of around $45mil/yr [0]. The Department was set up by the New Mexico Legislature. Puerto Rico has an Institute of Puerto Rican Culture ("Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña"). They are a government-owned corporation. They seem constantly stressed by their budget [2]. They have a budget of around $17mil/yr [1]. [0] http://www.newmexicoculture.org/about http://www.newmexicoculture.org/about [1] http://www.presupuesto.pr.gov/presupuestoRecomendado2018-2019/PresupuestosAgencias/Instituto%20de%20Cultura%20Puertorriquena.htm http://www.presupuesto.pr.gov/presupuestoRecomendado2018-201... [2] https://nasaa-arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/PR_2013-2017-Strategic-Plan.pdf https://nasaa-arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/PR_2013-20...

TMWNN 7y ago

No more than we did to any other English-speaking US territory in the 19th or 20th century that didn't have enough people for statehood. (And before you bring up Puerto Rico, a) it's not English-speaking and b) no, it's not true that its people have ever voted for statehood, whether in 2017 or any other year.) If Guam or USVI ever gets to a population closer to that of one of the smaller US states, and its people vote to apply for statehood, we'll talk then. Same goes for Greenland should the US buy it, hordes of Americans migrate to it, and it develops a substantial English-speaking population.

gambiting 7y ago
Why would English speaking have anything to do with applying for statehood?
- TMWNN 7y ago
  Because English is vital to being part of a unified American culture. If the US annexed Canada, I would also not want Quebec as a state for the same reason. Either make it a territory or give it independence.
  - kanbara 7y ago
    That's completely untrue. The US has no national language, and bilingualism is something to encourage not suppress. There are 41 _million_ spanish speakers in the US. HI, AK, ND, LA, PR, NM all have more than english as an official language. The more language learning is taught, the more Americans of every type can appreciate other cultures, and the more new Americans feel supported in their communities. Take the nationalism elsewhere.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    I consider the current native speakers of New Mexican Spanish, whose family settled in New Mexico in the 1600s, to be equally a part of the "unified American culture" as you are. The same for the Amish who speak Pennsylvanian German, the Gullah speaking people, the Cajun speakers, and the many indigenous people of North America who speak Navajo, or Hawaiian, or language at home.