What area of the world do you think will become "STATE 52" of the USA? ("State 51" is DC.)

Puerto Rico

¡Gracias, Señorita! ¡Muy bien!

September 5, 2008, 4:40 PM EDT

De Rien oops that’s french

Aucun problème.

September 5, 2008, 4:43 PM EDT

Moi aussi.

That’s easy for YOU to say!

September 5, 2008, 5:29M EDT

Can you please take over Ecuador just imagine, the galapagos islands for the cheap!

Where’s this going?

Why would D.C. be brought in as a state when it was explicitly setup not to be?

And while there are four physical geographic regions of Texas, I cannot fathom why anyone would want to split it up that way. And contrary to some beliefs, Texas does not have a special right to secede from the Union. (ALL states have enjoyed what has ever and always been voluntary membership in the Union, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option.)

And most crazy is Québéc on the list. Man, they don’t even like their English-speaking countrymen… no way they’d want to join the U. S. of A.

—

So anyway, it’s an interesting question you posit here. I’m just curious where it came from and where it’s going.

My money would be on Puerto Rico, although this idea seems pretty ridiculous all together.

Cuba.

The UK?

The way things are going, it’ll probably be Iraq.

Cuba, that’s ridiculous, right now. But Puerto Rico, well, they only lack the right to vote and pay federal taxes. For all other practical purposes they might as well be a state. They say they are a colony, but the technicality of not paying federal income tax allows the govs to keep face in front of our constitutional ban on colonies.

DC is not a state. Puerto Rico would join our ranks first and foremost.

You’ve got to be kidding about Québec – if you’ve ever been there or met anyone from there you know they’d rather eat cold 5-day old poutine than join with the US.

I suggest that the US split up and Canada can take the following: Washington down to California, Colorado, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York.

I wonder what, if anything, would happen to the flag. Where would that next star go?

As an American, I sure as hell don’t want that lemon of a country known as Israel and all of the stupid issues that come with it.

Most likely Puerto Rico.

why quebec? many francophone people in quebec do want to separate from canada, but they are also catholic. america is based partly on trying to escape cathilocism (the puritans, quakers, etc…), so why would america even want quebec in? the anglophone people are very proud to be canadian, and many actually dont like american policy (gee, what a surprise. i, for one, will get a britsih accent if mccain gets elected—im and anglo canadian)

if any canadian province were to be part of america, it would be ontario, because the policy is very similar. in fact, toronto is known as “the american city of canada”. another option are the 3 northern territories because theres a lot of oil up there, but canadians already accept the fact that nothings gonna happen there with any canadian political party.

@winblowzxp: Watch the next Miss America pageant. There are 51 contestants. “Miss DC” is the 51st. Note that “State 51” was in quotes.

September 5, 2008, 10:41 PM EDT

Ahhh-h-h-h-h… for the Miss America pageant.

@Mtl_zack: According to friends of mine who live in Montreal, there are some folks there who would not mind seeing Québéc align itself with the USA (where Louisiana is) as the newest American state.

September 5, 2008, 11:43 PM EDT

well, Louisiana is kind of special, in that its very traditional. it keeps many of its french cultural ideas and is very unique. i think one main problem is the fear of assimilation. somehow, Louisiana has overcome that. Canada is a multicultural country, im very proud of that, but the u.s. is a melting pot and people would not adjust very well to the new way of life.

btw, im from montreal too. GO HABS GO!!!!

You are indeed in good company, coming from a city that is home to Alex Trebek and William Shatner, among others.

September 5, 2008, 12:12 PM EDT

Looks like one of the moderators is Jewish and rather sensitive. I’ll make sure to only praise Israel in the future.

There has been some very serious talk about the feasibility of Israel becoming a state of the USA, and the only reason this would be considered, is because if it was a USA state, then a strong military presence (like an AFB) could be placed there, and ANY attack against the STATE of Israel, would be an attack against the entire USA, and none of our enemies would be quick to attack the USA, whereas they MIGHT be quick to attack a separate nation named Israel.

So, American statehood for Israel would be done, strictly as a protective measure.

But it really is being seriously bantered about, on The Beltway.

September 6, 2008, 6:50 PM EDT

Spargett’s comment that was removed in no way violated the guidelines. If that comment is worthy of being removed then I can show you a bloody massive pile of answers and questions that deserve that kind of censorship too. In any event, bad form.

I agree with the above comment, wholeheartedly. With my entire whole.

Removed by Fluther moderators.

This thread really did end up going somewhere totally unexpected.

I want my bacon!

@JA: I’d like to see some references regarding the “serious talk” about Israel becoming a U.S. state. This is news to me, as my impression is that they (the country and government of Israel) have very much intended to maintain their sovereignty in these last 60 years or so…

As for the rest of the quips about mentioning Israel, or others’ sensitivity to it, I’m not Jewish, am a moderator, and am offended by the off-color remarks…is there a more tactful way to say you wouldn’t support the concept without denigrating a race/nation of people? I thought this community was above that kind of criticism…

[Fluther Moderator:] For the purposes of clarity, JackAdams’s most recent post here was not actually removed by us. He simply chose to post the phrase “Removed by Fluther moderators.” (Notice that you still have the option to ‘great answer’ it, which would obviously be unavailable for removed content.)

In addition, we reviewed Spargett’s comment, decided that it was wrongly removed, and it has been restored. Do not hesitate to use the contact link to report “our driving”.

Hope this helps.

hmmm, that’s curious!

@sndfreQ: Unfortunately, I can’t supply you with any “official” references regarding the strategic and technical reasons why such has been bandied about in State Dept. briefings I have attended (in the 1970s, in my capacity as a federal government employee), nor can I share quotations overheard from officials at Washington cocktail parties.

I respectfully suggest that you arrange an invitation to either, and you will more than likely witness the same conversations to which I was privy.

I can give you a tiny bit of insight, if you don’t mind, on how the minds of our government representatives sometimes “function.” They are indeed brilliant at what they do.

A prison inmate escaped from the Statesville Prison (Joliet IL) in the 1950s (not sure of the exact year), and the law enforcement officials in Illinois wanted the FBI to get involved in the capture of the notorious inmate. The FBI refused to get involved in the case because, at that time, they claimed that no federal laws had been violated.

The state of Illinois responded with a missive that said that if the FBI did NOT get involved in the case, that the state of Illinois would hold a press conference and PROVE to everyone on Planet Earth that a federal law had, in point of fact, been violated, and that the FBI was refusing to do its contstitutionally-mandated functions.

After FBI Director John Edgar Hoover personally read the communication from the state of Illinois, he immediately ordered FBI agents in Illinois (and the surrounding states) to “get involved in the capture of this dangerous felon.”

So what federal crime had the escaped prison inmate committed, that required FBI involvement?

When the prison inmate escaped, he didn’t lawfully and properly inform the US Selective Service System of HIS CHANGE OF ADDRESS, as required by federal statutes.