The 51st state, in United States political discourse, is a phrase that refers to areas either seriously or derisively considered candidates for addition to the 50 states already part of the United States. Before 1959, when Alaska and Hawaii joined the U.S., the term "the 49th state" was used. Most commonly, the possibility of Puerto Rico becoming 51st state was discussed as a possible outcome of a proposed series of referendums to decide a change to that island's political organization (see further below).
The phrase "51st state", when used in a negative sense, can refer to independent states which are, or are perceived to be, under excessive American influence or control. In various countries around the world, people who believe their local and/or national culture has become too Americanized sometimes use the term "51st state" in critical reference to their respective countries.[1] The term 51st stater usually refers to non-U.S. residents who emulate mannerisms and culture of an American, or a non-American politician who is a supporter of the United States, especially its foreign policy.
Contents |
Under Article IV, Section Three of the United States Constitution, which outlines the relationship among the states, Congress has the power to admit new states to the union. The states are required to give "full faith and credit" to the acts of each other's legislatures and courts, which is generally held to include the recognition of legal contracts, marriages, and criminal judgments. The states are guaranteed military and civil defense by the federal government, which is also obliged by Article IV, Section Four, to "guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government." New states are admitted into the Union by the precedents and procedures established by the Northwest Ordinance. Following the precedent established by the Enabling Act of 1802, an Enabling Act must be passed by Congress as a prerequisite to admission. The act authorizes the people of a territory to frame a constitution, and lays down the requirements that must be met prior to consideration for statehood.
Puerto Rico currently has limited representation in Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a nonvoting delegate. The 110th Congress returned the Commissioner's power to vote in the Committee of the Whole, but not on matters where the vote would represent a decisive participation.[2] Puerto Rico has elections on the United States presidential primary or caucus of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to select delegates to the respective parties' national conventions although presidential electors are not granted on the Electoral College.
Contrary to common misconception, residents of Puerto Rico pay many U.S. federal taxes: import/export taxes, federal commodity taxes, social security taxes, etc. Most residents do not pay federal income tax but do pay federal payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare). However, federal employees, or those who do business with the federal government, Puerto Rico–based corporations that intend to send funds to the U.S. and others also pay federal income taxes. Puerto Ricans may enlist in the U.S. military. Puerto Ricans have fully participated in all U.S. wars since 1898.
On October 2011, Governor Luis Fortuño set August 12, 2012 to hold the first part of a two-step status plebiscite. If a second status vote is required, it will take place on the same day as the general election in November 6, 2012, he added. The first referendum will ask voters whether they want to maintain the current commonwealth status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution or whether they prefer a non-territorial option. If more voters check the nonterritorial option, a second vote would be held giving people three status options: statehood, independence or free association.[3] The statehood position is carried by the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico.
As of November 2011[update], the bill proposed by the Governor of Puerto Rico to provide for a self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico has been approved by the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico and it is under evaluation by the Senate of Puerto Rico. The bill under consideration by the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico followed the recommendation of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status reports of two-stage plebiscite to determine whether the Puerto Rican people wish to retain the status quo, and if not, which of the two available options they prefer. The 2005 Task Force concluded that such a process would be the best way to ascertain the popular will in a way that provides clear guidance for future action by U.S. Congress.
Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917; but as of 2011[update] the island’s ultimate status has not been determined and, as with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in the Federal government of the United States. However, like the states, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people, and a bill of rights.
This constitution was created when the U.S. Congress directed local government to organize a constitutional convention to write the Puerto Rico Constitution in 1951. The acceptance of that constitution by Puerto Rico's electorate, the U.S. Congress, and the U.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 the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Congress in 1948.[4]
Puerto Rico officially designates itself on its constitution with the term "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico".[7] Regardless, the island is still considered to be under the jurisdiction of the Territorial Clause of the U.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 become citizens of the U.S. at birth (per provisions of the Jones Act in 1917), but citizens residing in Puerto Rico cannot vote for president or for full members of either House of Congress. Full statehood would obviously grant island residents full voting rights at the Federal level. The Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499) was approved on April 29, 2010, by the United States House of Representatives 223–169,[8] but was not approved by the Senate before the end of the 111th Congress. It would have provided for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico. This act would provide for plebiscites to be held in Puerto Rico to determine the island's ultimate political status. It had also previously been introduced in 2007.[9]
Puerto Rico statehood referenda have been consistently, though narrowly, unsuccessful. In each referendum, statehood supporters are matched almost equally by supporters of maintaining the status quo (the balance of the votes being cast by supporters of full independence), although support for statehood has risen in each successive popular referendum.[10]
If Puerto Rico were a U.S. state, it would rank 29th in population, and have five seats in the House of Representatives.[11][12][13] Puerto Rico has a GDP per capita approximately 25% lower than the lowest state, though existing states vary by up to 50%.[14]
Puerto Rico's population in the 2010 census was 3,725,789. By comparison, Oklahoma ranked 28th, with 3,751,351, and Connecticut ranked 29th, with 3,574,097.
The 1940 Democratic party platform expressed their support to a larger measure of self-government leading to statehood for Puerto Rico.
The Democratic party platform of 1940 said:
We favor a larger measure of self-government leading to statehood, for Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. We favor the appointment of residents to office, and equal treatment of the citizens of each of these. three territories. We favor the prompt determination and payment of any just claims by Indian and Eskimo citizens of Alaska against the United States.[15]
President Gerald R. Ford proposed statehood in 1976:
I believe that the appropriate status for Puerto Rico is statehood. I propose, therefore, that the people of Puerto Rico and the Congress of the United States begin now to take those steps which will result in statehood for Puerto Rico. I will recommend to the 95th Congress the enactment of legislation providing for the admission of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union.[16]
President Ronald Reagan favored statehood:
I favor statehood for Puerto Rico and if the people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood in their coming referendum I would, as President, initiate the enabling legislation to make this a reality.[17]
President George H. W. Bush raised the issue of statehood before Congress in his first State of the Union message in 1989:
There’s another issue that I’ve decided to mention here tonight. I’ve long believed that the people of Puerto Rico should have the right to determine their own political future. Personally, I strongly favor statehood. But I urge the Congress to take the necessary steps to allow the people to decide in a referendum.[9]
President George H. W. Bush issued a memorandum on November 30, 1992 to heads of executive departments and agencies, establishing the current 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.[9]
On December 23, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed executive Order 13183, which established the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status and the rules for its membership. Section 4 of executive Order 13183 (as amended by executive Order 13319) directs the Task Force to "report on its actions to the President ... on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico's ultimate status." President George W. Bush signed an additional amendment to Executive Order 13183 on December 3, 2003, which established the current co-chairs and instructed the Task Force to issue reports as needed, but no less than once every two years.[11][12]
Both the Democratic Party and Republican Party, in their respective 2008 party platforms, have expressed their support of the rights of the United States citizens in Puerto Rico to determine the destiny of the Commonwealth to achieve a future permanent non-territorial political status with government by consent and full enfranchisement.[18][19]
The Republican Party platform of 2008 says:
We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.[20]
The Democratic Party platform of 2008 says:
We believe that the people of Puerto Rico have the right to the political status of their choice, obtained through a fair, neutral, and democratic process of self-determination. The White House and Congress will work with all groups in Puerto Rico to enable the question of Puerto Rico's status to be resolved during the next four years.[21]
The latest report by the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status recommends that all relevant parties—the President, Congress, and the leadership and people of Puerto Rico—work to ensure that Puerto Ricans are able to express their will about status options and have that will acted upon by the end of 2012 or soon thereafter.[22]
The report further recommends, "... if efforts on the Island do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of acceptable status options, including the Statehood, that the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. This legislation should commit the United States to honor the choice of the people of Puerto Rico (provided it is one of the status options specified in the legislation) and should specify the means by which such a choice would be made. The Task Force recommends that, by the end of 2012, the Administration develop, draft, and work with Congress to enact the proposed legislation."[22]
The Washington, District of Columbia jurisdiction is often mentioned as a likely candidate for statehood. In Federalist No. 43 of the Federalist Papers, James Madison considered the implications of the definition of the "seat of government" found in the United States Constitution. Although he noted potential conflicts of interest, and the need for a "municipal legislature for local purposes",[23] Madison did not address the district's role in national voting. At the time, some believed that giving the district full voting rights would be like giving Congress its own separate vote, increasing its power at the expense of the citizens. However, the city's population has grown to over 600,000 people (larger than Wyoming's and comparable to those of several other states), and the calls for representation in Congress have increased. 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.[24]
Of the potential candidates for statehood, citizens of the District of Columbia tend to be most supportive of their statehood movement. Washington, D.C. residents who support this movement sometimes use the Revolutionary War protest motto "Taxation without representation", denoting their lack of Congressional representation; the phrase is now printed on newly issued Washington, D.C. license plates (although a driver may choose to have the Washington, D.C. website address instead). President Bill Clinton's presidential limousine had the "Taxation without representation" license plate late in his term, while President George W. Bush had the vehicle's plates changed shortly after beginning his term in office.[25]
This position was carried by the D.C. Statehood Party, a minor party; it has since merged with the local Green Party affiliate to form the D.C. Statehood Green Party. The nearest this movement ever came to success was in 1978, when Congress passed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called New Columbia. The drive for statehood stalled in 1985, however, when the Washington, D.C. Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states ratified the amendment within the seven-year span specified.
Statehood will likely remain a highly contentious political issue due to the political demographics of the city. Washington, D.C. has long voted overwhelmingly Democratic, and the addition of another state would likely guarantee two Democratic Senators in a closely divided Senate.
Another proposed option would be to have Maryland, from which the current land was ceded, retake the District of Columbia, as Virginia has already done for its part, while leaving the National Mall, the United States Capitol, and the White House in a truncated District of Columbia.[26] This would give residents of the city of Washington the benefit of statehood while precluding the creation of a 51st state.
Other less likely contenders are Guam and the United States Virgin Islands, both of which are unincorporated organized territories of the United States. Also the Northern Mariana Islands, which is a commonwealth like Puerto Rico, and American Samoa, an unorganized, unincorporated territory, could attempt to gain statehood. Some proposals call for the Virgin Islands to be admitted with Puerto Rico as one state (often known as the proposed "Commonwealth of Prusvi", for Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands, or as "Puerto Virgo"), and for the amalgamation of U.S. territories or former territories in the Pacific Ocean, in the manner of the "Greater Hawaii" concept of the 1960s. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands would be admitted as one state, along with Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands (though these latter three entities are now separate sovereign nations, which have Compact of Free Association relationships with the United States). Such a state would have a population of 447,048 (slightly lower than Wyoming's population) and an area of 911.82 square miles (slightly smaller than Rhode Island). American Samoa could possibly be part of such a state, increasing the population to 511,917 and the area to 988.65 square miles (2,560.6 km2). Radio Australia, in late May 2008, issued signs of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands becoming one again and becoming the 51st state.[27]
| Location | Population | Area (sq. mi.) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Puerto Rico | 3,725,789 | 3,514 | 2010 U.S. Census results |
| United States Virgin Islands | 112,000 | 133.73 | July 2005 estimate |
| Total | 4,106,259 | 3,647.73 | Puerto Rico & U.S. Virgin Islands |
| Location | Population | Area (sq. mi.) | Comments |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 80,801 | 184.17 | July 2005 estimate |
| Guam | 175,877 | 209.85 | July 2008 estimate |
| American Samoa | 64,869 | 76.83 | July 2006 estimate |
| Total American Pacific | 321,547 | 988.65 | |
| Marshall Islands | 62,000 | 70 | 2009 estimate |
| Palau | 20,879 | 177 | 2010 estimate |
| Federated States of Micronesia | 111,000 | 271 | 2009 estimate |
| Total Former Trust Territories | 193,906 | 518 | |
| Total | 515,453 | 1506.65 |
The Philippines has a small grassroots movement for statehood. Originally part of the platform of the Progressive Party, then known as the Federalista Party, the party dropped it in 1907 which coincided with the name change.[28][29] As recently as 2004, the concept has been part of a political platform in the Philippines.[30] Supporters of this movement have mainly been Filipinos that had fought as members of the United States Armed Forces in various wars during the Commonwealth period.[31][32]
Various suggestions for Philippine statehood have included its entry as a whole or the partial entry of the westernized north, leaving the predominantly Muslim parts of Mindanao to form its own country (see Moro National Liberation Front) or join Indonesia. The movement initially had a significant impact during the early American colonial period;[29] however in recent history it is no longer a mainstream movement,[33] and is primarily a minor social movement.[34][35]
There exist several proposals, mainly from minority populations within large states, to divide states into two smaller, more homogeneous entities. The new creations would become a re-formed and possibly re-named 50th and new 51st state.
The Texas Constitution and the Texas Annexation Act both provide for the possibility of Texas voting to divide into up to four further sovereign States of the Union. While there is, contrary to popular myth, no provision for Texas to secede from the United States, there are claims that, according to the terms of the Annexation Act, Texas could divide into more States without Congressional sanction. Current Texas politics and self-image make any tampering with Texas' status as the largest contiguous state unlikely.[36][37][38]
Proposals of new states by partition include:
Any states that would split would have to get Congressional approval to split. Historically, only three states have lost territory to newer states: Massachusetts in 1820 (when Maine split off as part of the Missouri Compromise) and Texas in 1850 (when it ceded some land for debt relief as part of the Compromise of 1850) were part of Congressional compromises related to slavery. Virginia forms a special case, as it has had two states split off from Virginia in two separate occasions, first Kentucky in 1792 and West Virginia in 1863.
Some countries, because of their cultural similarities and close alliances with the United States, are often described—in jest or derisively—as a 51st state. In other countries, movements with various degrees of support and seriousness have proposed U.S. statehood.
In Canada, "the 51st state" is an emotional trigger phrase generally used in such a way as to imply that if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be to become "the 51st state".
The implication is not without historical basis: The U.S. unsuccessfully invaded Canada during both the American Revolution and the War of 1812; the Hunter Patriots in the 1830s and the Fenian raids after the American Civil War were private attacks on Canada from the U.S.[43] Several U.S. politicians in the 19th century also spoke in favour of annexing Canada.[44] In 1949, during the last days of the Dominion of Newfoundland (at the time a British colony independent of Canada), there was mainstream support, although not majority, for the dominion to join the United States, thanks to the efforts of the Economic Union Party. The movement failed after the monarchy rejected the idea, and the dominion eventually joined Canada instead.
In modern times, becoming "the 51st state" is usually raised either as a potential consequence of adopting policies that propose greater integration or cooperation with the United States (such as the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, or the current debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter), or as a potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue of Quebec sovereignty (such as the Charlottetown Accord in 1992, or the Clarity Act in 1999). During the Meech Lake Accords crisis, several provincial governments went as far as to put in writing plans to apply for annexation to the United States in the event that the crisis resulted in the division of Canada. They were never used or officially acknowledged.[45]
The phrase is usually used in local political debates, in polemic writing or in private conversations. It is rarely used by politicians themselves in a public context, although at certain times in Canadian history political parties have used other similarly loaded imagery. In the 1988 federal election, the Liberals asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada[46]—notably, the party ran an ad in which Tory strategists, upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. border from a desktop map of North America.[47] Within days, however, the Tories responded with an ad which featured the border being drawn back on, as an announcer intoned "Here's where we draw the line."[48]
A few fringe groups in Canada have actively campaigned in favor of joining the United States. These annexationist movements have not attracted much mainstream attention, although surveys have found that a minority of Canadians expressed some support for the concept, ranging from as many as 19% in a Léger Marketing survey in 2001[49] to just seven per cent in another survey by the same company in 2004.[50]
In the United States, use of the term "the 51st state" when applied to Canada can serve as either a positive or negative reference, depending on the context. In some circumstances, the term is used from a U.S. perspective to highlight the similarities and close relationship between Canada and the United States. However, the term is more often used disparagingly, intended to deride Canada, or make it appear as an unimportant or inconsequential neighbor of the United States. The pejorative nature of the term is particularly evident given that Canada already contains thirteen separate jurisdictions (which hold powers similar to U.S. states), is the world's second largest nation in terms of land area with a population greater than those of all but one U.S. state and Canadian federal policy is often introduced with the primary aim of distinguishing Canada from the United States.
In the Quebec general election, 1989, Parti 51 ran for elections proposing secession of Quebec from Canada and annexation to the US. The party attracted just 3,846 votes across the entire province, 0.11 per cent of the total votes cast.
Due to geographical proximity of the Central American countries to the U.S. which has powerful economic influences and political importance in the Americas (including periods of U.S. military occupations), there were several movements and proposals by the United States during the 19th and 20th centuries to annex some or all of the 6 or 7 Central American republics (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras with the formerly British-ruled Bay Islands, Nicaragua, Panama which has the U.S.-ruled Canal Zone territory from 1903 to 1979, and formerly British Honduras or Belize since 1981). These movements and proposals all failed.
In 1855, American filibuster William Walker staged a coup in civil war-torn Nicaragua with the intent of adding additional slave states to the Union. He installed himself as president in 1856, but was overthrown by a coalition of Central American nations.
Home to 500,000 American land owners before the outbreak of the Spanish–American War, Cuba was projected to become US territory through a potential purchase from the Spanish empire. In 1859, Senator John Slidell introduced a bill to place thirty million dollars into the hands of the President, to be applied towards the purchase of Cuba from Spain.[51][52]
The pro-independence movement in Cuba was funded and supported by the U.S., as guerrilla leaders pleaded for annexation for statehood in the 1880s and early 1890s, but Cuban revolutionary leader José Martí objected and called for Cuban nationhood. The Teller Amendment to the congressional reply to President William McKinley's War Message imposed a condition of the United States military action in Cuba that the U.S. could not annex Cuba but only leave "control of the island to its people." In the Treaty of Paris which ended the Spanish–American War, Spain relinquished all claim of sovereignty over Cuba, but did not cede it to the U.S. as it did other territories. Despite this the Platt Amendment, which superseded the Teller amendment in 1901, allowed the United States certain rights and it was several years before U.S. troops were withdrawn.
From 1903 to 1958, the U.S. opted to back every government, most notably the General Fulgencio Batista regime which was ousted in 1959 by Fidel Castro. Castro erected an independent Marxist-Leninist government which has been in power ever since.
In 1898, one or more news outlets in the Caribbean noted growing sentiments of resentment of British rule in Dominica, including the system of administration over the country. These publications attempted to gauge sentiments of annexation to the United States as a way to change this system of administration.[53]
In 1869, Dominican president Buenaventura Báez tried to persuade the United States to annex his debt-ridden, war-torn nation. U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant supported this plan, but the annexation treaty failed in the 56-member Senate 28–28, falling well short of the two-thirds required by the Constitution.[54]
There is an organization dedicated to the integration of Guyana with the United States, GuyanaUSA. Their claim is based on the idea that Guyana has strong connections with the United States in terms of people (100,000 people have joint Guyanese-American citizenship and 350,000 Guyanese live in the U.S., half as many remain in Guyana). It is the only South American country with English as its official language. Guyana, however, appears to have partly committed itself to the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and also the South American integration organization, becoming a founding member of the Union of South American Nations in 2008.
Time Magazine columnist Mark Thompson suggested that Haiti had effectively become the 51st state after the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The widespread destruction from the earthquake prompted a quick and extensive response from the United States and the U.S. military utilized Haitian air and sea ports to facilitate foreign aid.[55]
The idea of incorporating Mexico as several new states of the United States has existed ever since the Mexican–American War of 1846–1848, when the All Mexico Movement proposed annexing Mexico by force. Today this idea stresses the strong economic and political connections between Mexico and the United States and the high recurring cost of defending a 2,000-mile (3,200 km) border. In 1913 during border skirmishes between the United States and Mexico, it was proposed by some that the U.S. annex Chihuahua.
The northeast region, consisting of the states of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and Nuevo León (where claims about federal taxes and water usage are similar to the proposed U.S. states complaints) is frequently alleged to be more alike in general mentality to Texas than to the rest of Mexico. These three states formed the core of the short-lived 19th century Republic of the Rio Grande.
In 1853, filibuster William Walker conquered the Mexican states of Baja California and Sonora with the intent of adding new slave states to the Union. Within three months he had incorporated both states into the independent Republic of Sonora, but a lack of support from the US Government and increasing pressure from the Mexican Government forced him to retreat.
The US and Australia share cultural roots, as well as major joint military and government interests, being members (with New Zealand) of the ANZUS Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951. Australia is an English-speaking country and is regarded as a close ally to the USA. The USA and Australia also have, remarkably, very similar governments, political systems and histories. While Australia is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, with HM The Queen Elizabeth II as sovereign and head of state in her role as Queen of Australia, and the Governor-General as her representative, both governments are federal, have a House of Representatives and a Senate that are elected in similar fashions, and State governments that operate in similar fashion. Australia has also put referendums forward regarding potential conversion into a full republic (the most recent time being in 1999), although all to date have failed. The United States and Australia were also both largely formed from British subjects who were disgruntled, albeit for differing reasons, resulting in a common frontier mentality and self image in which the nations were carved out of a wilderness and formed into a free, prosperous nation. The similarities in both politics and culture between Australia and the United States have been remarked upon throughout history, and can be seen reflected in the close relations between the two nations at virtually every level and type of relationship that exists between them.
In Australia, the term '51st State' is used as a disparagement of a perceived invasion of American cultural or political influence.[56]
Several publications suggest that the Iraq War is a neocolonial war to make Iraq the 51st state, usually a tongue-in-cheek statement.[57][58][59][60][61]
Several websites assert that Israel is the 51st state due to the annual funding and defense support it receives from the United States. An example of this concept can be found in 2003 when Martine Rothblatt published a book called "Two Stars for Peace" that argued for the addition of Israel and the Palestinian Territories as the 51st and 52nd states in the Union. "The American State of Canaan", is a book published by Prof. Alfred de Grazia, political science and sociologist, in March 2009, proposing the creation of a 51st from both Israel and Palestine.
Despite the United Nations guarantee of the protection and preservation of Japanese sovereignty, some American congressmen insisted they should annex a war-defeated Japan. The U.S. armed forces rejected such a plan during the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on the USS Missouri.
However, in Article 3 of the Treaty of San Francisco between the Allied Powers and Japan, which came into force in April 1952, the U.S. put the outlying islands of the Ryukyus, including the island of Okinawa—home to over 1,000,000 Okinawans related to the Japanese—and the Bonin Islands, the Volcano Islands, and Iwo Jima into U.S. trusteeship.[62] All these trusteeships were slowly returned to Japanese rule. Okinawa was returned on May 15, 1972, but the U.S. continues to station troops in the island's bases, an emotional subject for many Okinawans who despised foreign occupation left over from the World War II era.[63]
The 51st State Party is a political party in New Zealand. It advocates New Zealand becoming the 51st state of the United States of America. The party's secretary is Paulus Telfer, a former Christchurch mayoral candidate.[64][65] On 5 February 2010, the party applied to register a logo with the Electoral Commission.[64] The logo - a US flag with 51 stars - was rejected by the Electoral Commission on the grounds that it was likely to cause confusion or mislead electors.[66]
A poll in 2003 among Taiwanese residents aged between 13 and 22 found that, when given the options of either becoming a province of China or a state within the U.S., 55% of the respondents preferred statehood while 36% chose joining with China.[67] See also 美屬台灣群島方案.
Albania is often cited as the 51st state due to its perceived strongly pro-USA positions mainly because of the Kosovo policy of the U.S. In reference to President George 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 State James Baker's visit in 1991, there was even a move to hold a referendum declaring the country as the 51st American state.[68][69]
In 1989, the Los Angeles Times jokingly proclaimed that Denmark becomes the 51st state every Fourth of July, because Danish citizens in and around Aalborg celebrate the American independence day.[70]
The Party of Reconstruction in Sicily, which claimed 40,000 members in 1944, campaigned for Sicily to be admitted as a U.S. state.[71] This party was one of several Sicilian separatist movements active after the downfall of Italian Fascism. Sicilians felt neglected or underrepresented by the Italian government, especially after the annexation of 1861 when Sicily was part of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies based in Naples. The large population of Sicilians in America and the American-led Allied invasion of Sicily in July–August 1943 may have contributed to the sentiment.
Following the Second World War there was also the Italian Unionist Movement, which called for Italy to become the 49th U.S. state.[72] The party was able to elect one member of parliament, Ugo Damiani.[73]
Poland is staunchly pro-American, dating back to General Tadeusz Kościuszko's leading American revolutionaries, and reinforced following favorable American interventions in World War I (leading to the creation of an independent Poland), World War II (re-creating an independent Poland), and the Cold War (culminating in a Polish state independent of Soviet influence), and contributing a large force in the "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq. A quote referring to Poland as "the 51st state" has been attributed to James Pavitt, then CIA Deputy Director for Operations, especially in connection to extraordinary rendition.[74] This prompted Bogdan Klich, then Poland's defence minister to respond angrily that the remark was "unacceptable".[75]
The United Kingdom has sometimes been called the 51st state due to the close and "special" relationship between the two countries which began with Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill during World War II, and more recently continued during the premierships of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.[76] "Just Another Star" (1988) is a serious attempt to analyse Anglo-American relations.
Related terms have been used in books and film. In Americathon (1979), set in a fictional 1998, Britain (re-named as Limeyland) has become the 57th state, and the logo of the Safeway grocery chain hangs on the Palace of Westminster. In the novel 51st State (1998) by Peter Preston, Britain leaves the European Union and becomes the 51st state of the USA. In The Light of Other Days (2000), a novel by Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter, Britain joins the United States, with the Prime Minister serving as governor and the Royal Family exiled to Australia. The British film The 51st State (2001), set in Liverpool, makes fun of Anglo-American relations. The film was released under the title Formula 51 in the United States and Canada, in view of sensitivity to the term "51st state" there.
The term has also been used in music. The 1986 album The Ghost of Cain by the English rock band New Model Army features a track called "51st State", which refers to Britain under Margaret Thatcher who herself proclaimed Britain to be the 51st state of America in one of her speeches. The song "Heartland" on the 1986 album Infected, by the British band The The, ends with the refrain "This is the 51st state of the U.S.A."
On Thursday 29th December 2011, David Aaronovitch argued in The Times that the UK should consider joining the USA, as the British population cannot accept union with Europe and the UK would inevitably decline on its own. He argued that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be four separate states of the USA.[77]
Frequently, organizations (NGOs, etc.) based primarily in the United States have smaller branches elsewhere. These branches may often be called the group's "51st state."
The Democratic National Committee recognizes each state for electoral purposes; however it also gives Democrats Abroad delegate votes to represent the approximately seven million U.S. citizens living abroad. In the context of the DNC, Democrats Abroad is often considered the "51st state."