It's not really clear why this is downvoted. I'm not a Puerto Rico expert, but a brief review of the Wikipedia article indicates that the UN has been conducting "decolonization" investigations to see how to assist Puerto Rico in becoming either a state or independent. And I don't think it's arguable that Puerto Rico doesn't have elected representation in Congress or in the Electoral College.

They're also not taxed like a state, citizens resident there aren't taxed on income, except for social security, which they receive the benefits of. So no, they're not represented, but they also don't have the same burdens.

Edit: it does sound like they might get shorted on Medicare benefits? It's unclear.

Edit2: this article looks at the difference between spending and taxes, in 2011, for all states and Puerto Rico: https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-...

Thank you for that clarification.

The way the comment is written it appears to be attacking Puerto Rico and claiming that it is better suited to be called a "colony". If the poster was unaware, this word has a very negative connotation due to what has happened to many of the places the United States and England have colonized. eg Haiti, India, "Just open a history textbook"

If the poster was instead trying to use this bad connotation to assist the argument that Puerto Rico probably shouldn't be a territory (which I now assume after looking at your comment), then that argument was lost in what was written. The writing is unclear in its intent, and that is likely why some folks misunderstood it. It kinda assumes you get lucky and interpret what he's saying the right way.

I'm guessing what's intended is actually to attack the US government's handling of Puerto Rico as being on an essentially colonial basis -- something that I find hard to completely dismiss if you look at bombing them in the 50s, the current debt crisis being worsened severely by Congress' refusal to allow recourse to bankruptcy, the shameful failure to render aid after Maria, etc.

> bombing them in the 50s, the current debt crisis being worsened severely by Congress' refusal to allow recourse to bankruptcy, the shameful failure to render aid after Maria

Just wanna say that I completely agree, but also wanted to tack on their non-existent representation in Congress.

I think it is rather likely they were aware of the connotation.

And the comment you replied to is also likely aware of such. That's why they pointed out a global cooperative body making noises about Puerto Rico and decolonization.

Also, your mention of Haiti is confused; it was a French colony, not a colony of the UK or US.

> your mention of Haiti is confused; it was a French colony, not a colony of the UK or US

Nice catch. And yeah, I just wanted to try and make things clear - no intention to be sassy.

There have been many votes on PR statehood, and the people of PR have always voted to remain a territory. I don't know enough about this to form a strong opinion, so I'd be interested to hear from PR residents as to why statehood has been a hard sell historically. I've always assumed it was a reaction against additional taxation but I don't know.

Morally, I don't think it matters in this case- whether it's a state or a territory or a sovereign government, the US (along with everyone else in a position to help) should be helping Puerto Rico as much as possible. It's just something I've never understood, and sadly it might be a factor in the current tragedy.

So is D.C., but that's also ignored.

If nothing else the federal government is there and they're between two states (and also a lot of the media is there) so it's a bit harder to imagine almost the entire city being without electricity for over a week.

That's probably true, though only because you've chosen that specific problem (and even then - I wouldn't claim that any level of incompetence is out of Pepco's reach).

How about the fact that DC still has a lead contamination problem that was, at its peak, 20-30x worse than the one in Flint, MI? Is that a problem that makes you think the 680,000 residents of the city, who pay all federal taxes and overwhelmingly want to be recognized as a state, deserve the same representation as the people of Wyoming or Texas or New Hampshire? DC's lack of representation is shameful - the textbook example of cynical, undemocratic partisan politics.

Puerto Rico absolutely deserves better representation and all the aid necessary to help them rebuild, but DC's situation is ridiculous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_contamination_in_Washingt...

I am totally in favor of DC statehood; I just find it hard to imagine we'd see these levels of apathy if it looked like Puerto Rico still does now.