Actually, business get exemptions from federal taxes I think which is why a lot of businesses already have expanded there. The special status is what would be lost upon statehood. It is fairly complicated and I don't understand it all but there are significant economic benefits to being a territory

"Maybe people think the travel ban is a racist targeting of Muslims because that's what trump said it was and his voters clearly supported."

there is no 'maybe' about it, that is what the supreme court has said. That is exactly how this executive order has been interpreted; and it turns out the supreme court gets the final say.

Of course, if Trump wants to have congress pass a bill to create a ban, then he could choose that route; and he might even get something which would pass supreme court scrutiny. But i'm not sure he cares to share the acclaim...

Actually I doubt that such a ban would hold up even if congress past it. It targets a suspect class and frankly it wouldn't really hold up under rational basis review, much less strict scrutiny. (For those nonlawyer types, all laws have to have some rational basis. Those targeting classes such as religious groups or minorities have to show there is a compelling interest unattainable through less restrictive means. No way it gets past such a review)

There are significant disadvantages to being under federal control with no say in what the federal government decides.

I'd like to know, are they a net contributor to the federal budget, or a net cost?

For Puerto Ricans, they remain US citizens in almost every way (it also gives them a right to spainish citizenship, if they want it, which means they can become EU citizens... "In legal terms, Puerto Ricans that acquire the Spanish citizenship with the use of the certificate would possess four citizenships recognized in Europe: those of Puerto Rico, the United States, Spain and the European Union (automatically granted along that of Spain)." - wikipedia) - so apart from being unable to vote for representation in congress (like those living in Washington DC) and being ruled by a local government with only the powers delegated by congress: "Its current powers are all delegated by the United States Congress and lack full protection under the United States Constitution." - also wikipedia.

Mostly, i think this is more about politics than it is about economics.

Well, no federal income tax is a biggie. I can see people rejecting statehood in that basis alone frankly. Overall Puerto Rico ranks around #15 in terms of net payments received out of 52 including DC.

Look at how the Trump-suckers and Neo-Nazis of the forum have just melted away from this thread.

"Get real. There aren't enough people in Montana to make one stae, much less two. Split Texas of California or New York, not some failed micro state with fewer people in the whole state than live in my home town. Even D.C. Gas more people."

Population of Montana = 1,042,520
Population of D.C. = 672,228

1,042,520 > 672,228

And lol wut? to "failed micro state" in particular

"and this laughable notion that Hillary Clinton is dishonest"

Thanks for helping me get my 10 second laugh in for the day. Helping me stay young.

There really isn't much else to discuss. Puerto Rico won't be a U.S. state anytime soon. I have already made my points about how security measures such as the so-called 'travel ban' (areas being targeted are prone to high levels of terrorism) and wall are good for America (stops human trafficking and drug smuggling). I have already said how the Paris Climate Accord is a bad deal for America's economy and based on a hoax. I don't really have anything else to say.

@Jamie: Is there something you want me to respond too in particular?

@" 'travel ban' (areas being targeted are prone to high levels of terrorism"

And it is still a lie.

Oh wow so Syria doesn't have high levels of terrorism? It's not like it's part of the Isis. Seriously Orathaic?

@"I have already said how the Paris Climate Accord is a bad deal for America's economy and based on a hoax." and beyond a lie, a ludicrous conspiracy theory, equivalent to flat earthers best. Well done.

@ND: Well, you could understand how, by celebrating more coal extraction, you're literally expressing glee at the destruction of the ecosystem your children will depend on to survive. How about that?

@ND did you read my previous post actually adressing your BS?

@Orthaic: ND doesn't actually listen to anything that's said to him. He's just here to trumpet whatever the Trump camp says is right or good, irrespective of the truth.

The Paris Climate Accord is simply a redistribution of wealth scheme cooked up by the Democrats to suck wealth and industry out of the United States. Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change or whatever it is called this month has some merit. The Earth does have a changing climate and has had one for 4 billion years. But, the hoax element stems from a communist/soviet era scheme to weaken the industrial west. Just read about the East Anglia email controversy. It's all been exposed anyone who still buys into it is just a simpleton, nuff said.

Yes, I saw your reply. Was there something more specific you want me to respond too that my responses so far this evening have not already covered?

Wow.

You're amazing, ND. It's remarkable that someone could be so deluded as you. I pity you in a way.

Coal extraction will not destroy the ecosystem. There have been many innovations within the coal industry and coal has been used for over a hundred years.

1. the paris accords are too weak, but what USA really needs (to continue their downward trend of carbon emissions) is support for the most cost efficient green energies, which as of right now Bill Gate's TerraPower nuclear design looks AMAZING economically speaking. of course there's a national sentiment especially on the left preventing this, so we're probably just going to throw hundreds of billions of subsidies at alternatives.

2. the travel ban is bad, for one of two perspectives. either it's not necessary or ineffective, or it IS necessary but not broad enough. without the information that the President has at our disposal, there's not much more to say other than the countries he picked don't make sense.

they don't make sense for security
they don't make sense as a racist
they don't make sense in the timing

"coal has been used for over a hundred years"

Of what relevance is this statement?

Slavery persisted for over 100 years, therefore it was great.

ND's logic. Anything that happens for a long time is good, and just, and virtuous.

I don't want to assume Jamie, but many folks in my extended family have mined coal. My father mined coal as did my grandfather. I think I know a bit more about it then you do.

What does your grandfather know about the Earth's climate, ND? Why should a coal miner have any expertise about the effect on the climate of burning fossil fuels?

I never said anything about slavery. It was an immoral and horrific system that was defeated. It has no correlation to modern day coal extraction. I pity you Jamie :(

@ND

would you be willing to concede that if Nuclear brushes aside Fossil Fuels on a freer market than what we have now

https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf

fossil fuels should be allowed to be abandoned in terms of economic irrelevance?

and the alternative energies that HAVE overtaken Fossil fuels in terms of efficiency shouldn't be punished for being better than fossil fuels?

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2014/05/20/why-the-best-path-to-a-low-carbon-future-is-not-wind-or-solar-power/

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Renewable_Infrastructure_Investment_Handbook.pdf

But it went on for over 100 years, ND. Otherwise, why did you suggest that if something goes on for a long time, it's great?

I mean, you did do that.

Sigh so many replies. I'll take a moment to compile all of my answers.

Just fuck off and don't bother. I'll mute you to save us both the time. If this goes on I'll just get banned again, because I think the world would be better off without you living in it, ND.