"51st state" is a phrase used in theUnited States to refer to the idea of adding an additional state to the current50-state country. Proposals for a 51st state may include granting statehood to one of the U.S. territories orWashington, D.C., splitting an existing state, or annexing part or all of a sovereign country.
The U.S. has not admitted any new states to the union since 1959, when bothAlaska (on January 3) andHawaii (on August 21) were admitted. Before that, no states had been admitted sinceArizona in February 1912. Before Alaska and Hawaii became U.S. states, the equivalent expression was "the 49th state": for example, theNational Movement for the Establishment of a 49th State was a 1930s movement that sought to create a primarilyBlack state in theSouthern United States.
In recent years, the term has been used most often in reference to active statehood movementsin Washington, D.C., andin Puerto Rico, both voted for statehood in recent referendums:D.C. in 2016 andPuerto Rico in 2020.[1][2][3] Their admission to the Union as states would require congressional approval.[4] The two regions have different statuses within the U.S., with Puerto Rico as one of the five permanently inhabitedU.S. territories, while D.C. has unique status as a federal administrative district. The path to statehood for Puerto Rico in particular would have parallels to the admission process of most U.S. states outside of the originalThirteen British Colonies, which started as territories before becoming states.
Since the2024 U.S. presidential election, the phrase has also been frequently invoked in reference toCanada, asDonald Trump has used the phrase repeatedly while calling for theU.S. annexation of Canada.[5] The U.S. annexed sovereign nations as states in the past, includingTexas,Hawaii, andVermont, though this has not happened in recent history.
Some U.S. states have experienced movements to split into two states, often due to strong political disagreements between different regions of a state. There is precedent for such state-splitting moves in U.S. history, such as the creation ofKentucky andWest Virginia fromVirginia, though, again, there have been no such moves in more than a century.
The phrase can also be used as aslang term in reference to regions or sovereign nations around the world that are not actually considered prospects for U.S. annexation, but are considered to be aligned with U.S. culture or political or military interests. This slang may be used in either a positive sense, or in apejorative sense (particularly towards Canada) similar to the termAmericanization.[6]
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of theUnited States Constitution authorizesCongress to admit newstates into the United States (beyond thethirteen already in existence at the time the Constitution wentinto effect in 1788). Historically, most new states brought into being by Congress have been established from anorganized incorporated territory, created and governed by Congress.[7] In some cases, an entire territory became a state; in others, some part of a territory became a state. As defined in a 1953U.S. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the traditionally accepted requirements for statehood are:
Although not a legal rule, historically having at least 60,000 free adult males was also a requirement for statehood. This was outlined in the Northwest Ordinance decreed in 1787[9] when the United States was under the Articles of Confederation. Even though the USA no longer operates under this government, Congress has generally followed this guideline as states were added to the union.[10]
In most cases, the organized government of a territory made known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood, usually by referendum. Congress then directed that government to organize aconstitutional convention to write astate constitution. Upon acceptance of that constitution by the people of the territory and then by Congress, ajoint resolution would be adopted granting statehood. The President would then issue a proclamation adding a new state to the Union. While Congress, which has ultimate authority over the admission of new states, has usually followed this procedure, there have been occasions (because of unique, case-specific circumstances) when it did not.[11]
A simple majority in each House of Congress is required to pass statehood legislation; however, in theUnited States Senate, thefilibuster requires 60 votes to invokecloture. Some statehood advocacy organizations have called for amending or abolishing the filibuster as a path to achieve statehood.[12][13] As with other legislation, the President can sign orveto statehood bills that pass, and Congress has the power to override a veto with a two-thirds majority; Nebraska is the only existing state admitted through a veto override.[14]
Although Congress, with approval of the President, can add a state to the Union, they cannot make another State by splitting or merging two existing states, without the consent of the State (or States) legislatures involved.[15]
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.[16]
While States can join the United States, once they do so it is illegal to leave,[17] a point of contention during theCivil War.
Once it becomes a State there are rules, it must for example write a State constitution and it must have sufficient financial and human resources to run its State government and support the Federal government.[10]
If a new U.S. state were tobe admitted, it would require a new design of the flag to accommodate an additional star for the 51st state.[18] However, according to theU.S. Army Institute of Heraldry, an existingUnited States flag never becomes obsolete. In the event that a new state is added to the Union and a 51-star flag is approved, any previously approved American flag (such as the 48-star flag or 50-star flag) may continue to be used and displayed until no longer serviceable.[19]
On June 13, 2022, Washington, D.C. MayorMuriel Bowser ordered flags with 51 stars to be hung along Pennsylvania Avenuein support of D.C. being added as a 51st state.[20]
.svg)
Should a 51st state be admitted, it would receiveU.S. Senate seats inclasses 1 and 2, at which point all three classes would have 34 senators.[21]
TheDistrict of Columbia is often mentioned as a candidate for statehood. In Federalist No. 43 ofThe Federalist Papers,James Madison considered the implications of the definition of the "seat of government" found in theUnited States Constitution. Although he noted potential conflicts of interest, and the need for a "municipal legislature for local purposes",[22] Madison did not address the district's role in national voting. Legal scholars disagree on whether a simple act of Congress can admit the District as a state, due to its status as the seat of government of the United States, which Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; depending on the interpretation of this text, admission of the full District as a state may require a Constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult to enact.[23]
The District of Columbia residents who support the statehood movement sometimes use the slogan "Taxation without representation" to denote their lack of Congressional representation. The phrase is a shortened version of the Revolutionary War protest motto "no taxation without representation" omitting the initial "No", and is printed on newly issuedDistrict of Columbia license plates (although a driver may choose to have the District of Columbia website address instead). PresidentBill Clinton'spresidential limousine had the "Taxation without representation" license plate late in his term, while PresidentGeorge W. Bush had the vehicle's plates changed shortly after beginning his term in office.[24] PresidentBarack Obama had the license plates changed back to the protest style shortly before his second-term inauguration.[25] PresidentDonald Trump eventually removed the license plate and signaled opposition to D.C. statehood.[26][27]
This position was carried by the D.C. Statehood Party, a political party; it has since merged with the localGreen Party affiliate to form theD.C. Statehood Green Party. The nearest this movement ever came to success was in 1978, when Congress passed theDistrict of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed aninitiative written and filed byJ. Edward Guinan calling for aconstitutional convention for a new state.[28] In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be calledNew Columbia. The drive for statehood stalled in 1985, however, when the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough statesratified the amendment within the allowed seven-year span.
Another proposed option would be to haveMaryland, from which the D.C. land was ceded,retake the District of Columbia, asVirginia has already done for itspart, while leaving theNational Mall, theUnited States Capitol, theUnited States Supreme Court, and theWhite House in a truncated District of Columbia.[29] This would give residents of the District of Columbia the benefit of statehood while precluding the creation of a 51st state, but would require the consent of theGovernment of Maryland.[30]
| ||||||||||||||||
| Voting system | Simple majority | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shall the voters of the District of Columbia advise the Council to approve or reject this proposal? | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
On April 15, 2016, District MayorMuriel Bowser called for a citywide vote on whether the nation's capital should become the 51st state.[31] This was followed by the release of a proposed State Constitution.[32] This Constitution would make theMayor of the District of Columbia the Governor of the proposed state, while the members of the District Council would make up the proposed House of Delegates.[33]
On November 8, 2016, the voters of the District of Columbia voted overwhelmingly in favor of statehood, with 86% of voters voting to advise approving the proposal.[1]
While the name "New Columbia" has long been associated with the movement, theCity Council and community members chose the proposed state name to be the State of Columbia, or the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. TheMarylandabolitionistFrederick Douglass was a D.C. resident and was chosen to be the proposed state's namesake alongsideGeorge Washington ofVirginia.[34]
To fulfill Constitutional requirements of having a Federal District and to provide the benefits of statehood to the 700,000-plus residents of D.C., in the proposed State of Washington, D.C., boundaries would be delineated between the State of Washington, D.C., and a much smaller federal seat of government. This would ensure federal control of federal buildings. The National Mall, the White House, the national memorials, Cabinet buildings, judicial buildings, legislative buildings, and other government-related buildings, etc. would be housed within the much smaller federal seat of government. All residences in the State of Washington, D.C. would reside outside the seat of federal government, except for the White House. The proposed boundaries are based on precedents created through the 1902McMillan Plan with a few modifications. The rest of the boundaries would remain the same.[35][36][37]
On June 26, 2020, theUnited States House of Representatives voted 232–180 in favor ofstatehood for Washington, D.C.
Passage ofthis legislation in the Senate was unlikely while the Republican Party held a Senate majority, and PresidentDonald Trump also promised to veto D.C. statehood.[38] The legislation was H.R. 51[39] in honor of D.C. potentially becoming the 51st state.[40] However, after the2020 Senate elections, theDemocratic Party had a Senate majority, meaningJoe Biden's presidency might have opened the door for D.C. statehood.[41]
The vote was the first time D.C. ever had a vote for statehood pass any chamber of Congress: in 1993, D.C. statehood legislation was rejected in a US House floor vote by 153–277. Another problem is that because Maryland released the land to become D.C., it may have a claim on any land released by Congress to become a state.[42]
On April 22, 2021, the United States House of Representatives voted 216–208 in favor of statehood for Washington, D.C.[43] A similar bill, S. 51, "A bill to provide for the admission of the State of Washington, D.C. into the Union" was earlier introduced into the United States Senate.[44][45] On April 30, Democratic senatorJoe Manchin came out against both bills, effectively dooming their passage.[46] (See117th United States Congress) Senator Manchin said the way to make D.C. a State was by a constitutional amendment, which was the process for the voting rights with the 23 Amendment. He went further, stating that the complications created by shrinking the Federal District to the National Mall with the 23rd Amendment should be addressed.[47] While others disagreed, he thought that if had been approved it would end up in the Supreme Court.[47]
Puerto Rico has been discussed as a potential 51st state of the United States. In 2019, H.R. 1965 – Puerto Rico Admission Act, 5% of the lower legislature were in support. The bill was passed on to the House Committee on Natural Resources.[48]
In a2012 status referendum a majority of voters, 54%, expressed dissatisfaction with the existing political relationship. In a separate question, 61% of voters supported statehood (excluding the 26% of voters who left this question blank). On December 11, 2012, Puerto Rico's legislature resolved to request that the President and the U.S. Congress act on the results, end its territorial status and begin the process of admitting Puerto Rico to the Union as a state.[49] On January 4, 2017, Puerto Rico's new representative to Congress pushed a bill that would ratify statehood by 2025.[50]
On June 11, 2017, another non-binding referendum was held[51] where 97.7 percent voted for the statehood option.[52] The turnout for this vote was 23 percent, a historical low as voter turnout in Puerto Rico usually hovers around 80%.[52] The low turnout was attributed to a boycott led by the pro-status quoPPD party.[53]
On June 27, 2018, the Puerto Rico Admission Act of 2018H.R. 6246Archived July 7, 2018, at theWayback Machine was introduced in theU.S. House with the purpose of responding to, and complying with, the democratic will of the United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico as expressed in the plebiscites held on November 6, 2012, and June 11, 2017, by setting forth the terms for the admission of the territory of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union.[54] The admission act had 37 original cosponsors among Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.[55]
A subsequentnonbinding referendum was held on November 3, 2020, to decide whether Puerto Rico should become a state. Statehood won the vote 52.52%–47.48%.[56]
On December 15, 2022, H.R. 8393 (the Puerto Rico Status Act) passed the House of Representatives in a 233–191 vote with 11 absences. It would have instituted a binding referendum that would allow Puerto Ricans to vote on the future status of the island, that Congress would be required to obey. EveryDemocrat voted in favor of the bill, and was joined by 16 Republicans.[57] The bill died in the Senate.The2024 Puerto Rican status referendum was also a win for Statehood in the November 2024 election, which also saw a Pro-Statehood Governor of Puerto Rico elected.
On February 15, 2025, the Puerto Rico House of Representatives approved a resolution on the legal status of Puerto Rico, the resolution, requests that "the President and Congress of the United States of America respond promptly and act in accordance with the demands of the citizens of Puerto Rico."[58]
Since 1898, Puerto Rico has had limited representation in theUnited States Congress in the form of aResident Commissioner, a non-voting delegate. The110th Congress returned the Commissioner's power to vote in theCommittee of the Whole, but not on matters where the vote would represent a decisive participation.[59] Puerto Rico has elections on theUnited States presidential primary or caucus of theDemocratic Party and theRepublican Party to select delegates to the respective parties'national conventions although presidential electors are not granted on theElectoral College. As American citizens, Puerto Ricans can vote in U.S. presidential elections, provided they reside in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia and not in Puerto Rico itself.
Residents of Puerto Rico payU.S. federal taxes: import and export taxes, federal commodity taxes, social security taxes, thereby contributing to the American Government. Most Puerto Rico residents do not payfederal income tax but do pay federalpayroll taxes (Social Security andMedicare). However, federal employees who do business with the federal government, Puerto Rico–based corporations that intend to send funds to the U.S., and others do pay federal income taxes. Puerto Ricans may enlist in theU.S. military. Puerto Ricans have participated in allAmerican wars since 1898; 52 Puerto Ricans had been killed in theIraq War andWar in Afghanistan by November 2012.[60]
Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century after it was ceded to the U.S. by Spain following the end of theSpanish–American War, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. The island's ultimate status has not been determined, and its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Like the states, Puerto Rico has self-rule, a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people, and abill of rights.
This constitution was created when the U.S. Congress directed local government to organize aconstitutional convention to write thePuerto Rico Constitution in 1951. The acceptance of that constitution by Puerto Rico's electorate, the U.S. Congress, and theU.S. president occurred in 1952. In addition, the rights, privileges and immunities attendant to United States citizens are "respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union" through the express extension of thePrivileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Congress in 1948.[61]
Puerto Rico is designated in its constitution as the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico".[62] TheConstitution of Puerto Rico, which became effective in 1952, adopted the name ofEstado Libre Asociado (literally translated as "Free Associated State"), officially translated into English asCommonwealth, for itsbody politic.[63][64] The island is under the jurisdiction of theTerritorial Clause of theU.S. Constitution, which has led to doubts about the finality of the Commonwealth status for Puerto Rico. In addition, all people born in Puerto Rico becomecitizens of the U.S. at birth (under provisions of theJones–Shafroth Act in 1917), but citizens residing in Puerto Rico cannot vote for the President of the United States nor for full members of either house of Congress. Statehood would grant island residents full voting rights at the federal level and 2 state senators, like each US state has.
In 1992, PresidentGeorge H. W. Bush issued a Memorandum to heads of Executive Departments and Agencies establishing the administrative relationship between the Federal Government and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This memorandum directs all Federal departments, agencies, and officials to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a State insofar as doing so would not disrupt Federal programs or operations. President Bush's memorandum remains in effect until Federal legislation is enacted to alter the status of Puerto Rico in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people of Puerto Rico.[65]
On April 29, 2010, theUnited States House of Representatives approved thePuerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499) by 223–169,[66] but was not approved by the Senate before the end of the111th Congress. It would have provided for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico. This act would provide forreferendums to be held in Puerto Rico to determinethe island's ultimate political status. It had previously been introduced in 2007.[67]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Voting system | Simplemajority for the first question,first-past-the-post for the second question | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Should Puerto Rico continue its current territorial status? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Which non-territorial option do you prefer? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In November 2012,a referendum resulted in 54 percent of respondents voting to reject its status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution,[69] while a second question resulted in 61 percent of voters identifying statehood as the preferred alternative to its territorial status.[70] The 2012 referendum was by far the most successful referendum for statehood advocates and support for statehood rose in each successive popular referendum.[71][72] However, more than one in four voters abstained from answering the question on the preferred alternative status. Statehood opponents have argued that the statehood option garnered 45 percent of the votes if abstentions are included.[73] If abstentions are considered, the result of the referendum is much closer to 44 percent for statehood, a number that falls under the 50 percent majority mark.[74]
The Washington Post,The New York Times and theBoston Herald have published opinion pieces expressing support for the statehood of Puerto Rico.[75][76][77] On November 8, 2012, Washington, D.C. newspaperThe Hill published an article saying that Congress will likely ignore the results of the referendum due to the circumstances behind the votes.[78] U.S. CongressmanLuis Gutiérrez and U.S. CongresswomanNydia Velázquez, both of Puerto Rican ancestry, agreed withThe Hill's statements.[79] Shortly after the results were published, Puerto Rico-born U.S. CongressmanJosé Enrique Serrano commented "I was particularly impressed with the outcome of the 'status' referendum in Puerto Rico. A majority of those voting signaled the desire to change the current territorial status. In a second question an even larger majority asked to become a state. This is an earthquake in Puerto Rican politics. It will demand the attention of Congress, and a definitive answer to the Puerto Rican request for change. This is a history-making moment where voters asked to move forward."[80]
Several days after the referendum, theResident CommissionerPedro Pierluisi, GovernorLuis Fortuño, and Governor-electAlejandro García Padilla wrote separate letters to the President of the United States,Barack Obama, addressing the results of the voting. Pierluisi urged Obama to begin legislation in favor of the statehood of Puerto Rico, in light of its win in the referendum.[81] Fortuño urged him to move the process forward.[82] García Padilla asked him to reject the results because of their ambiguity.[74] The White House position on the November 2012 plebiscite was that the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved, and a majority chose statehood in the second question. Former White House director of Hispanic media stated, "Now it is time for Congress to act and the administration will work with them on that effort, so that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their own future."[83]
On May 15, 2013, Resident Commissioner Pierluisi introduced H.R. 2000 to Congress to "set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union", asking for Congress to vote on ratifying Puerto Rico as the 51st state.[84] On February 12, 2014, SenatorMartin Heinrich introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate. The bill would require a binding referendum to be held in Puerto Rico asking whether the territory wants to be admitted as a state. In the event of a yes vote, the president would be asked to submit legislation to Congress to admit Puerto Rico as a state.[85]
On January 15, 2014, the United States House of Representatives approved $2.5 million in funding to hold a referendum. This referendum can be held at any time as there is no deadline by which the funds have to be used.[86] The United States Senate then passed the bill which was signed into law on January 17, 2014, byBarack Obama, then President of the United States.[87]
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| Voting system | Plurality | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
The previous plebiscites had provided voters with three options: statehood, free association, and independence. ThePuerto Rican status referendum of 2017 instead originally offered two options: Statehood and Independence/Free Association. However, a third option, "current territorial status" was later added. The referendum was held on June 11, 2017, with an overwhelming majority of voters supporting statehood at 97.16%; however, with a voter turnout of 22.99%, it was a historical low. Had the majority voted for Independence/Free Association, a second vote would have been held to decide whether to have full independence as a nation, or to achieve associated free state status with independence but with a "free and voluntary political association" between Puerto Rico and the United States. The specifics of the association agreement[88] would've been to be detailed in theCompact of Free Association that would have had to be negotiated between the U.S. and Puerto Rico. That document could have covered topics such as the role of the U.S. military in Puerto Rico, the use of the U.S. currency, free trade between the two entities, and whetherPuerto Ricans would be U.S. citizens.[89]
The governor,Ricardo Rosselló was strongly in favor of statehood to help develop the economy and help to "solve our 500-year-old colonial dilemma ... Colonialism is not an option ... It's a civil rights issue ... 3.5 million citizens seeking an absolute democracy".[90] Benefits of statehood would include an additional $10 billion per year in federal funds, the right to vote in presidential elections, higher Social Security and Medicare benefits, and the right for its government agencies and municipalities to file for bankruptcy.[91]
At approximately the same time as the referendum, Puerto Rico's legislators were expected to vote on a bill that would allow the Governor to draft a state constitution and hold elections to choose senators and representatives to theUnited States Congress.[needs update] Regardless of the outcome of the referendum or the bill on drafting a constitution, action by Congress would have still been necessary to implement changes to the status of Puerto Rico under theTerritorial Clause of the United States Constitution.[91]
If the majority ofPuerto Ricans were to choose the Free Association option – and 33% voted for it in 2012 – and if it were granted by the U.S. Congress, Puerto Rico would become a Free Associated State, a virtually independent nation. It would have a political and economical treaty of association with the U.S. that would stipulate all delegated agreements. This could give Puerto Rico a similar status toMicronesia, theMarshall Islands, andPalau, countries which have aCompact of Free Association with the United States.
Those Free Associated States use the American dollar, receive some financial support and the promise of military defense if they refuse military access to any other country. Their citizens are allowed to work in the U.S. and serve in its military.[88]
In total, 500,000 Puerto Ricans voted for statehood, 7,600 voted for independence, and 6,700 voted for status quo.[92]
| ||||||||||||||||
| Website | [2] | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| "Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State?" | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
A referendum of the status of Puerto Rico was held on November 3, 2020, concurrently with thegeneral election. This was the sixthreferendum held on thestatus of Puerto Rico, with theprevious one having taken place in 2017. This was the first referendum with a simpleyes-or-no question, with voters having the option of voting for or against becoming aU.S. state.[93]
The referendum was non-binding, asthe power to grant statehood lies with theUS Congress. Theparty platforms of both theRepublican Party and theDemocratic Party have affirmed for decades Puerto Rico's right toself-determination and to be admitted as a state, at least in theory, but individual Republican legislators have been more skeptical.
According to Senate Bill 1467, which placed the referendum on the ballot, voting "No" on the referendum would mean that a seven-member commission would be appointed to negotiate with the federal government for the free association or independence of Puerto Rico.[94][95]
Statehood won the referendum 52.52%–47.48%.[56]
 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| Results | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 Statehood 60–70% 50–60% 40–50% Results bymunicipality | |||||||||||||||||||||
In 2024 another referendum was conducted, with three choices: Statehood, Independence, or Independence with Free Association. Statehood won with 58% of the vote in this referendum, though it did not include an option for status quo.
Guam (formally the Territory of Guam) is anunincorporated and organized territory of the United States. Located in the westernPacific Ocean, Guam is one offive American territories with a civilian government.[96][97]
Guam is geographically a part of theMariana Islands but Guam rejected unification with theNorthern Mariana Islands in the past (at the time mostly due to tax issues; see1969 Guamanian unification with the Northern Mariana Islands referendum); at the same time, referendums held in the Northern Marianas in1958,1961,1963, and1969 consistently demonstrated that the Northern Mariana Islanders supported unification with Guam. The Northern Marianas in later referendums chose to join the United States, which it did in 1986 as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, but like Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands has not reached statehood.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, there was a significant movement in favor of Guam becoming acommonwealth, which would give it a level of self-government similar toPuerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands. However, the federal government rejected the version of commonwealth that the government of Guam proposed, because its clauses were incompatible with theTerritorial Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2) of the U.S. Constitution. Other movements advocate U.S. statehood for Guam, union with the state of Hawaii,union with the Northern Mariana Islands as a single territory, or independence.[98]
In a 1982 plebiscite, voters indicated interest in seeking commonwealth status. The island has been considering another non-binding plebiscite on decolonization since 1998. GovernorEddie Baza Calvo intended to include one during the island's November 2016 elections but it was delayed again.[99]
A Commission on Decolonization was established in 1997 to educate the people of Guam about the various political status options in its relationship with the U.S.: statehood, free association and independence. The group was dormant for some years. In 2013, the commission began seeking funding to start a public education campaign. There were few subsequent developments until late 2016. In early December 2016, the Commission scheduled a series of education sessions in various villages about the status of Guam's relationship with the U.S. and the self-determination options that might be considered.[99] The commission's executive director is Edward Alvarez and there are ten members. The group is also expected to release position papers on independence and statehood but they have not yet been completed.[98]
Guam was occupied for over 450 years by the Spanish and then the Japanese. Under the United States the people have had several referendums to determine their fate, and the current status dates to 1980s referendum which was won to continue as territory of the United States. Several late 20th referendums also determined they did not desire a unification with the Northern Marianas to the north, which joined the United States as territory in 1986.
In 2016, Governor Eddie Calvo planned a decolonization referendum solely for the indigenousChamorro people of Guam, in which the three options would be statehood, independence, and free association. However, this referendum for the Chamorro people was struck down by a federal judge on the grounds of racial discrimination. In the wake of this ruling, Governor Calvo suggested that two ballots be held: one for the Chamorro People and one for eligible U.S. citizens who are non-indigenous residents of Guam. A reunification referendum in Guam and its neighbor, theNorthern Mariana Islands (a U.S. Commonwealth) has been proposed.[100][101] A 2016 poll conducted by theUniversity of Guam showed a majority supporting statehood when respondents were asked which political status they supported.[102]
TheUnited Nations is in favor of greater self-determination for Guam, though it has concluded its interest in the Northern Marianas which was removed from list of non self governing after it chose to join in the United States after a series of referendums in the 1960s and 1970s. The UN'sSpecial Committee on Decolonization has agreed to endorse the governor's education plan. The commission's May 2016 report stated: "With academics from theUniversity of Guam, [the Commission] was working to create and approve educational materials. The Office of the Governor was collaborating closely with the Commission" in developing educational materials for the public.[103]
The United StatesDepartment of the Interior had approved a $300,000 grant for decolonization education, Edward Alvarez told the United Nations Pacific Regional Seminar in May 2016. "We are hopeful that this might indicate a shift in [United States] policy to its Non-Self-Governing Territories such as Guam, where they will be more willing to engage in discussions about our future and offer true support to help push us towards true self-governances and self-determination."[104]
| ||||||||||||||||
| Voting system | Plurality | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shall the voters of the Indian Territory approve or reject this proposed constitution? | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
TheIndian Territory attempted statehood in 1905, when citizens of theFive Civilized Tribes proposed creating theState of Sequoyah as a means to retain control of their lands and resources. Aconstitutional convention was held on August 21, 1905, inMuskogee, and the proposed constitution was overwhelmingly approved by the territory's indigenous and white residents.[105] Congress did not support statehood for Sequoyah, and the Indian Territory was annexed intoOklahoma in 1907.
TheU.S. Virgin Islands explored the possibility of statehood in 1984,[106] and in a1993 referendum, whileAmerican Samoa explored the possibility of statehood in 2005[107] and 2017.[108]
.svg)
The United States annexed the Philippines as itsterritory from theSpanish Empire in 1898 and established theInsular Government of the Philippine Islands in 1901. Since then, thePhilippines has had small grassroots movements for U.S. statehood.[109] Originally part of the platform of theProgressive Party, then known as theFederalista Party, the party dropped it in 1907, which coincided with the name change.[110][111] Philippines became an independent nation in 1946.
During thePhilippine presidential elections of 1981, 4% of the electorate voted forBartolome Cabangbang, a member of theInterim Batasang Pambansa fromBohol. He ran under the Federal Party which advocated for a plebiscite to convert the Philippines into the 51st US state.[112]
As recently as 2004, the concept of the Philippines becoming a U.S. state has been part of a political platform in the Philippines.[113] Supporters of this movement include Filipinos who believe that the quality of life in the Philippines would be higher and that there would be less poverty there if the Philippines were anAmerican state or territory. Supporters also include Filipinos that had fought as members of theUnited States Armed Forces in various wars during theCommonwealth period.[114][115][116]The Philippine statehood movement had a significant impact during its earlyperiod as an American territory.[111] It is no longer a mainstream movement,[117] but it is still a social movement that periodically gains interest and talk in the nation.[118]
No major politician in the Philippines has advocated for US statehood as of 2014[update]. Election candidates in favor of the proposal have been declared as "nuisance candidates" by thePhilippine government's election commission.[119]
There have historically been several proposals, with varying degrees of support, to divide states having regions that are politically or culturally divergent into smaller, more homogeneous, administratively efficient entities.[120] Splitting a state requires the approval of both its legislature and the U.S. Congress.[121]
Proposals of new states by partition include:
Some countries, because of their cultural similarities and close alliances with the United States, or American egotism are sometimes described as a 51st state. In other countries around the world, movements with various degrees of support and seriousness have proposed U.S. statehood.
In Canada, "the 51st state" is a phrase generally used to imply that if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be little more than a part of the United States. Examples include theCanada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter, and the potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue ofQuebec sovereignty, theCharlottetown Accord in 1992 and theClarity Act in 1999.
The phrase is usually used in local political debates, inpolemic writing or in private conversations. It is rarely used by politicians in public, although at certain times in Canadian history political parties have used other similarly loaded imagery. In the1988 federal election, theLiberals asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada[151] – the party ran an ad in whichProgressive Conservative (PC) strategists, upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. border from a desktop map of North America.[152] Within days, however, the PCs responded with an ad which featured the border being drawn backon with a permanent marker.[153]
The implication has historical basis and dates to the breakup ofBritish America during theAmerican Revolution. The colonies that had confederated to form the United States, invadedCanada (then a term referring specifically toUpper Canada andLower Canada, now the modern-day provinces ofQuebec andOntario, which had both been in British hands since1763) several times, specifically theinvasion of Quebec in 1775 and1778–1782. The first invasion occurred in 1775–1776 mainly across the Canadian side of theLake Champlain andSt. Lawrence River valleys, under the assumption that French-speaking Canadians' presumed hostility towards British colonial rule combined with theFranco-American alliance would make them natural allies to the American cause; theContinental Army successfully recruitedtwo Canadian regiments for the invasion. That invasion's failure forced the members of those regiments into exile, and they settled mostly inupstate New York. However, the Continental Army was more successful in the Western theater in lands north of theOhio Valley and south of theGreat Lakes region, both of which were part of Canada. TheArticles of Confederation, written during the Revolution, included a provision for Canada to join the United States, should they ever decide to do so, without needing to seek U.S. permission as other states would.[154] At the end of the Revolution, the U.S. took portions of Canadian territory of what is now present dayIllinois,Indiana,Michigan,Ohio,Wisconsin, and parts ofMinnesota in accordance to theTreaty of Paris in 1783. The U.S. againinvaded Canada during theWar of 1812, but this effort was made more difficult due to the wide use of ill-equippedstate militias and owing to the large number ofLoyalists that had fled to what is now Ontario and still resisted joining the republic. TheHunter Patriots in the 1830s and theFenian raids after theAmerican Civil War were private attacks on Canada from the U.S.[155] Several U.S. politicians in the 19th century also spoke in favor of annexing Canada,[156] as did Canadian politicianWilliam Lyon Mackenzie, who set up a rogueRepublic of Canada on a small island near the U.S. border during theUpper Canada Rebellion.
In the United States, the term "the 51st state" when applied to Canada is used disparagingly, intended to deride Canada as an inconsequential neighbor.[157][158]
In December 2024, then-President-electDonald Trump suggested Canada consider becoming the 51st U.S. state, during talks with then-Prime MinisterJustin Trudeau over proposed tariffs and border security atMar-a-Lago. He later referred to Trudeau as "Governor Justin Trudeau of the Great State of Canada".[159][160] This was initially taken as a joke, with Ontario PremierDoug Ford joking onFox News that this was Trump's attempt at revenge for theWar of 1812.[161]
Trump continued to refer to Trudeau as "Governor", even after he resigned from office, and repeatedly declared his desire for Canadian annexation throughout his first 100 days in office, including while proposing major tariffs on the Canadian economy.[162][163][164][165][166] He quipped that NHL legendWayne Gretzky should run to become the Governor of an annexed Canada.[167]
Trump's comments reignited pre-existing discourse on U.S.-Canadian union. Canadian authorDon Tapscott was among those who considered the logistics of a full merger, in which Canada would need to be composed of 13 states or territories. (Trump had suggested that Canada would enter the Union as just two states, one more conservative, one more liberal.)[168] Effects would include Ontario becoming the fifth largest state in the US with 16 million residents, a potential absorption of Canadian healthcare into the U.S. system, and regional differences for Canadian programs including women's healthcare, paid parental leave for men and women, gun control, campaign finance, standardized education funding, and a more pro-refugee immigration stance.[169]
Since Donald Trump's comments on his support of annexing Canada, there have been a number of opinion polls conducted asking Canadians on their opinion of the proposal. The responses from Canadians have been overwhelmingly against Canada joining the United States as the 51st state.
| Should Canada join the United States of America as the 51st state | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date | Pollster/Company | Yes | No | Unsure | |
| 24 Mar 2025 | Léger[170] | 9% | 85% | 5% | |
| 3 Mar 2025 | Léger[170] | 9% | 85% | 6% | |
| 17 Jan 2025 | Abacus Data[171] | 22% | 71% | 8% | |
| 16 Jan 2025 | Ipsos[172] | 20% | 80% | — | |
| 14 Jan 2025 | Angus Reid[173] | 10% | 90% | ||
| 10 Dec 2024 | Léger[174] | 13% | 82% | 5% | |
Some polls have also been conducted asking American opinions on Canada being annexed as the 51st state. An Angus Reid poll reported 49% of Americans opposing the proposal and 25% supporting it, with 26% being unsure.[173]
In 1980 two members of theLegislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, both elected as members of theProgressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan (and one,Dick Collver, its former leader),crossed the floor to form theUnionest Party, a provincial party in Saskatchewan which advocated that the four provinces ofWestern Canada should join the United States. The name was a contraction of "best union." The party soon folded.
One example of a Canadian annexation movement is in the province of Alberta.[178] In the 21st century, an Alberta51 separatist project was founded and gained some media attention.[179]Peter Zeihan argued in his bookThe Accidental Superpower that the Canadian province ofAlberta would benefit from joining the United States as the 51st state.[180] There is growing support forAlberta separatism resulting from federal government policies which are believed to be harming the province's ability to build pipelines for the province's oil and gas industry andfederal equalization payments.[181] In a September 2018 poll, 25% of Albertans believed they would be better off separating from Canada and 62% believed they are not getting enough from confederation.[182] Ever since Trump's proposal on annexing Canada in 2024, interest within theAlbertan annexationist movement has drawn increased attention within Alberta's political landscape.[183] In 2025, theRepublican Party of Alberta was formed modeled after the US AmericanRepublican Party.
In the late 1940s, during the last days of theDominion of Newfoundland (at the time a separatedominion in theBritish Empire and independent of Canada), there was mainstream support, although not majority, for Newfoundland to form an economic union with the United States, thanks to the efforts of theEconomic Union Party and significant U.S. investment in Newfoundland stemming from theU.S.-British alliance inWorld War II. The movement ultimately failed when, in a1948 referendum, voters narrowly chose to confederate with Canada (the Economic Union Party supported an independent "responsible government" that they would then push toward their goals).[184]
In the1989 Quebec general election, the political partyParti 51 ran 11 candidates on a platform ofQuebec seceding from Canada to join the United States (with its leader, André Perron, claiming Quebec could not survive as an independent nation).[185] The party attracted just 3,846 votes across the province, 0.11% of the total votes cast.[186] In comparison, the principal party in favor of Quebec sovereignty in that election, theParti Québécois, got 40.16%.[187]
In 1847–1848, with the United States' resounding defeat of Mexico and the occupying at the conclusion of theMexican–American War, there was talk in Congress ofannexing the entirety of Mexico. The result was theMexican Cession through theTreaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, named for the town in which the treaty was signed, in which the U.S. annexed almost 31% of Mexico. The Mexican Cession consisted of territory that became the states ofCalifornia,Nevada,Utah, most ofArizona, the western half ofNew Mexico, the western quarter ofColorado, and the southwest corner ofWyoming. The United States would later purchase additional Mexican territory in theGadsden Purchase in 1854. In 1848, a bill was debated in Congress that would have annexed theRepublic of Yucatán, but there was no vote.[188]
Due to geographical proximity of the Central American countries to the U.S., with its powerful military, economic, and political influences, there were several movements and proposals by the United States during the 19th and 20th centuries to annex some or all of the Central American republics (Costa Rica,El Salvador,Guatemala,Honduras with the formerly British-ruled Bay Islands,Nicaragua,Panama which had the U.S.-ruledCanal Zone territory from 1903 to 1979, andBelize, which is a constitutional monarchy and was known asBritish Honduras until 1973). However, the U.S. never acted on these proposals from some U.S. politicians; some of which were never delivered or considered seriously. In 2001, El Salvador adopted theU.S. dollar as its currency, while Panama has used it for decades due to its ties to the Canal Zone.
In 1854, theOstend Manifesto outlined a rationale for the U.S. to purchase Cuba from Spain, implying that it might take the island by force if Spain refused. Once the document was published, many Northern states denounced it.
In 1859,SenatorJohn Slidell introduced a bill to purchase Cuba from Spain.[189][190]
.jpg)
Cuba, like many Spanish territories, wanted to break free from Spain. A pro-independence movement in Cuba was supported by the U.S., and Cuban guerrilla leaders wanted annexation to the United States, but Cuban revolutionary leaderJosé Martí called for Cuban nationhood. When the U.S. battleshipMaine sank in Havana Harbor, the U.S. blamed Spain and theSpanish–American War broke out in 1898. After the U.S. won, Spain relinquished its claim of sovereignty over most of its remaining territories, including Cuba. The U.S. administered Cuba as aprotectorate until 1902.
In 1898, one news outlet in the Caribbean noted growing sentiments of resentment of British rule inDominica, including its system of administration. The publication attempted to gauge sentiments concerning annexation to the United States as a way to change this system of administration.[191]
On June 30, 1870, theUnited States Senate voted against anannexation treaty with theDominican Republic.[192]
DuringWorld War II, whenDenmark was occupied byNazi Germany, the United States briefly controlledGreenland for battlefields and protection, since the nation was in a strategic position. In 1946, the United States offered to buy Greenland from Denmark for US$100,000,000 (US$1,600,000,000 as of 2024) but Denmark refused to sell.[193][194] Some have, in recent years, argued that Greenland would hypothetically be better off financially as part of the United States; for instance this was mentioned by Professor Gudmundur Alfredsson at theUniversity of Akureyri, Iceland, in 2014.[195][196] One possible reason for U.S. interest in Greenland is its vast natural resources.[197] According toThe Arctic Institute, the U.S. appears to be highly interested in investing in the resources of the island and in tapping the expected vast amount ofhydrocarbons off the Greenlandic coast.[198]
Time columnist Mark Thompson suggested thatHaiti had effectively become the 51st state after the2010 Haiti earthquake, with the widespread destruction prompting a quick and extensive response from the United States, even so far as stationing of the U.S. military in Haitian air and seaports to facilitate foreign aid.[199]
.svg)
InGuyana, there is a fringe group named "Guyana, USA", which seeks for the incorporation of the country into the United States, whether as a new state or territory.[202][203]
Albania has been called the 51st state for its perceived strongly pro-American positions, and the United States'policies towards it.[204] In reference to PresidentGeorge W. Bush's 2007 European tour,Edi Rama,Tirana's mayor and leader of the opposition Socialists, said: "Albania is for sure the most pro-American country in Europe, maybe even in the world ... Nowhere else can you find such respect and hospitality for the President of the United States. Even in Michigan, he wouldn't be as welcome." At the time of ex-Secretary of StateJames Baker's visit in 1992, there was a move to hold a referendum declaring the country as the 51st American state.[205][206] In addition to Albania,Kosovo (which is predominately Albanian) is seen as a 51st state due to the heavy presence and influence of the United States. The U.S. has had troops and the largest base outside U.S. territory,Camp Bondsteel, in the territory since 1999.[citation needed]
In 1873, the leader of theCanton of Cartagena,Roque Barcia, requested thatCartagena become part of the United States in a letter to PresidentUlysses S. Grant. The Canton of Cartagena had emerged in the same year asa revolt against theFirst Spanish Republic. The United States Government never replied.[207]
In 1989, theLos Angeles Times published thatDenmark becomes the 51st state everyFourth of July, because Danish citizens in and aroundAalborg celebrate the American Independence Day in a small gathering called theRebild Festival.[208]
Poland has historically been staunchlypro-American, dating to GeneralTadeusz Kościuszko andCasimir Pulaski's support of theAmerican Revolution. This pro-American stance was reinforced following favorable American intervention in World War I (leading to the creation of anindependent Poland) and the Cold War (culminating in a Polish state independent of Soviet influence). Poland contributed a large force to the "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq. A quote referring to Poland as "the 51st state" has been attributed toJames Pavitt, thenCentral Intelligence AgencyDeputy Director for Operations, especially in connection toextraordinary rendition.[209] Currently, Poland ranks as the nation with the most favorable view of the United States among countries surveyed internationally, with more than 85% of Poles expressing positive views toward America as of 2024.[210][211]
TheItalian Unionist Movement was a political party briefly active during and afterWorld War II, with the goal of anannexation of Italy to the United States.[212]
InSicily, the Party of Reconstruction was one of severalSicilian nationalist and separatist movements active after the downfall ofItalian Fascism.Sicilians felt neglected or underrepresented by the Italian government after the annexation of 1861 that ended the rule of theKingdom of the Two Sicilies based inNaples. It claimed 40,000 members in 1944, and campaigned for Sicily to be admitted as a U.S. state.[213]
.svg)
TheUnited Kingdom has sometimes been called "the 51st state" due to theSpecial Relationship inUnited Kingdom–United States relations, particularly since the close cooperation betweenFranklin D. Roosevelt andWinston Churchill during World War II, and more recently during the premierships ofMargaret Thatcher andTony Blair.[214]
In the 1960s, prior to the accession of the United Kingdom to theEuropean Economic Community (as it was then),Prime MinisterHarold Wilson reportedly held informal discussions withUS PresidentLyndon Johnson about the possibility of the UK becoming America's 51st state.[215]
In an April 5, 1999 article inForbes, historianPaul Johnson proposed that, as an alternative to theEuropean Union, the UK should become ten states (one each for Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, with England divided into seven). He went on to suggest that then Canada (as one state per province), Australia, and New Zealand should also join this expanded United States.[216]
In a 2011 column inThe Times, journalistDavid Aaronovitch joked that the UK should consider joining the United States as its 51st state, becauseEuroscepticism in the United Kingdom andBrexit would otherwise lead to terminal decline. He also made an alternative case thatEngland,Scotland, andWales should be three separate states, withNorthern Ireland joining theRepublic of Ireland and becoming anall-Ireland state.[217]
The UK bandNew Model Army released the song "51st State" in 1986. The lyrics facetiously refer to the "Star Spangled Union Jack" and describes the UK as culturally and politically dominated by the United States.[218] The song "Heartland" byThe The from the same year ends with the refrain "This is the 51st state of the U.S.A."[219]
During theRussian invasion of Ukraine,Republican congresswomanMarjorie Taylor Greene controversially referred to Ukrainian presidentVolodymyr Zelenskyy as a "shadow president (of theUnited States)", remarking thatUkraine was also the "51st state" due to the "insane amount" ofAmerican support for Ukraine in the war.[220]
In Australia, the term '51st state' is used to disparage the perceived invasion of American cultural or political influence.[221]
In 2010, there was an attempt to register a51st State Party with the New Zealand Electoral Commission. The party advocates New Zealand becoming the 51st state of the United States of America. The party's secretary is Paulus Telfer, a formerChristchurch mayoral candidate.[222][223] On February 5, 2010, the party applied to register a logo with the Electoral Commission.[222] The logo – a U.S. flag with 51 stars – was rejected by the Electoral Commission on the grounds that it was likely to cause confusion or mislead electors.[224]
In Article 3 of theTreaty of San Francisco between the Allied Powers and Japan, which came into force in April 1952, the U.S. put the outlying islands of theRyukyus, including the island ofOkinawa (home to over one millionOkinawans, an ethnically distinct people speakingRyukyuan languages related to theJapanese language), theBonin Islands, and theVolcano Islands (includingIwo Jima) intoU.S. trusteeship.[225] All these trusteeships were slowly returned to Japanese rule. Okinawa was returned on May 15, 1972, but the U.S. stationstroops in the island's bases as a defense for Japan. The continued military presence has been described as a 51st state.[226]
Several sources assert that theState of Israel functions as a 51st state due to the annual funding, defense and overall support it receives from theUnited States.[227] An example of this is the 2003 book byMartine Rothblatt calledTwo Stars for Peace that argued for the addition ofIsrael andthe Palestinian territories as the 51st and 52nd states of the Union.The American State of Canaan is a book by political scientist and sociologistAlfred de Grazia from March 2009, proposing the creation of the "State ofCanaan" from Israel and Palestine.[228]
According to Iran's formerIRGC Commander-in-ChiefSalami, before the1979 Iranian revolution, Iran was practically the 51st state of the United States.[229] In 1978,Jimmy Carter traveled to Iran where he famously stated that Iran has become "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world",[230] even saying that Iran was the country most important for American national interests and when he entered Iran, he felt like it was America's "54th state".[231]
Several publications suggested that the2003 invasion of Iraq was aneocolonialist war to makeIraq into the 51st U.S. state, though such statements are usually made facetiously.[232][233][234][235][236]
A poll in 2003 amongTaiwanese residents aged between 13 and 22 found that, when given the options of either becoming a province of the People's Republic ofChina or a state within the U.S., 55% of the respondents preferred statehood while 36% chose joining China.[237] A group called Taiwan Civil Government, established in Taipei in 2008, claims that theisland of Taiwan and other minor islands are a territory of the United States.[238]
The idea ofadmission to the United States was discussed among somenetizens based on Hong Kong's maturecommon law system, long tradition ofliberalism and vibrantcivil society making it a global financial hub similar toLondon orNew York.[239][240][241][242][243] Alongside proposals of becoming independent (within or outside theCommonwealth, as a republic or aCommonwealth realm),[244] rejoining the Commonwealth,[245] confederation with Canada as the eleventh province or the fourth territory (with reference toKen McGoogan's proposal regarding Scotland),[246] returning to British rule as a dependent territory,[247] joiningTaiwan (Republic of China)[248] or acceding to otherfederations as acity-state.[citation needed]
.svg)
There are no African countries historically tied to the United States more closely thanLiberia. Established by theAmerican Colonization Society in 1822 as a home for freed Black Americans, Liberia's capital,Monrovia, was named afterJames Monroe, the fifth U.S. president. Liberia has sometimes been regarded as a "mini-America" on the West African coast because its people speak English, useU.S. customary units, have modeled the flag after the Stars and Stripes and even created a U.S.-style constitution. Many Liberians regard the U.S. as their "mother country". "We are the 51st state," said Herbert Walker, a Liberian street merchant.[undue weight? –discuss] "We sang your national anthem and learned American history. We love American dollars."[249][250]
During the2025 Honduran general election, the presidential candidate Mario "Chano" Riveras (Christian Democratic Party) has proposed to annex Honduras to United States. The motto of his campaign is "Join thegringos".[251]
With my vote, I make the initial request to the Federal Government to begin the process of the decolonization through: (1) Free Association: Puerto Rico should adopt a status outside of the Territory Clause of the Constitution of the United States that recognizes the sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico. The Free Association would be based on a free and voluntary political association, the specific terms of which shall be agreed upon between the United States and Puerto Rico as sovereign nations. Such agreement would provide the scope of the jurisdictional powers that the People of Puerto Rico agree to confer to the United States and retain all other jurisdictional powers and authorities. Under this option the American citizenship would be subject to negotiation with the United States Government; (2) Proclamation of Independence, I demand that the United States Government, in the exercise of its power to dispose of territory, recognize the national sovereignty of Puerto Rico as a completely independent nation and that the United States Congress enact the necessary legislation to initiate the negotiation and transition to the independent nation of Puerto Rico. My vote for Independence also represents my claim to the rights, duties, powers, and prerogatives of independent and democratic republics, my support of Puerto Rican citizenship, and a "Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation" between Puerto Rico and the United States after the transition process
"Let us seize this opportunity to identify concrete actions to advance the decolonization agenda," Mr. Ban said … according to the United Nations Charter and relevant General Assembly resolutions, a full measure of self-government could be achieved through independence, integration or free association with another State. The choice should be the result of the freely expressed will and desire of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories.
The perennial presidential candidate Ely Pamatong banks on this allure, campaigning, as he does, on a platform of US statehood for the Philippines.
Voters in the massive state of California, touted as having an economy larger than most countries, could decide whether to support a plan calling for The Golden State to be split into three. An initiative that would direct the governor to seek Congressional approval to divide California into three states has enough valid signatures to be eligible for the Nov. 6 ballot, the Secretary of State's office said Tuesday. If the initiative is not withdrawn, it will be qualified for the ballot on June 28. Even if approved by voters, it faces the hurdle of approval by Congress.
.svg)
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)Here in the land of opportunity, watch us revel in our liberty. You can say what you like but it doesn't change anything, because the corridors of power are an ocean away. We're the 51st state of America
The writer and Japan expert Murray Sayle calls Okinawa America's 51st state – its aircraft carrier.