An appropriate way to welcome visitors to the city they fund.

I think if you asked DC whether they'd rather continue to be funded by federal income and burdened by the national politics that constantly dictate what they can and can't do - or whether they'd prefer to enjoy the same level of freedom that other US cities enjoy they'd choose the former. In fact I don't think - I know - DC statehood has been a hugely locally popular movement for quite some time.

Just because you bought someone a coffee after punching them in the gut doesn't mean they appreciate your patronage.

A better option would be to transfer the residential neighborhoods of DC to existing states, and keep only the area around the Capitol and White House under federal control.

> A better option would be to transfer the residential neighborhoods of DC to existing states

The Virginia part was already retroceded in 1847, less than 60 years after the creation of the district; retroceding the Maryland part is a pretty common Republican alternative to D.C. statehood since pressure began for it (though it is opposed by both Maryland and D.C. residents who have 232 years of separate history.)

I actually completely agree - I think that it'd be far more fair to residents of the DC metro area if the whole city was just merged into either VA or MD (ideally the entire metro area would end up being moved into one of the states entirely - so maybe MD would be granted Arlington and Alexandria - or VA would get a chunk of MD... but either way I think it'd be far better for DC if it weren't this weird quasi-federal zone.

I also don't think that proximity really confers any undo influence at this point - so if the federal buildings just became federal property within the state of VA/MD similar to thousands of other federal properties that'd probably be fine.

> DC statehood has been a hugely locally popular movement for quite some time.

I'm sure many locales with 670k residents would love to become states, that'd be a pretty sweet deal.

Vermont and Wyoming have fewer residents.

Hey, as a former Vermonter I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell everyone that. Do you want us to take away Bernie? /s

Indeed. 436 states, here we come!

If we granted statehood to every federal territory that has more residents than Wyoming, we'd have 52.

Why choose the least populous state as the standard for admission instead of, say, the median?

Probably to give your argument as many points in its favor as possible - which is quite difficult considering how absurd your comment was. You originally said "436 states here we come" - even going by the lowest bar we currently have we'd only have two additional states.

Only 28 of our current states have a population above the median population of all US states and territories. I don't think the other 22 states would be wild about that admission standard.

> I don't think the other 22 states would be wild about that admission standard.

We have a well established process for asking states about this sort of thing, the US Congress. They don't seem to be wild about the minimum populous state standard, we should ask about the median populous state standard.

DC is a blue "state" they fund other states via taxes more than the inverse.

The main employer in DC is the federal government, and those jobs are paid for by the rest of the country's taxes...

27% of the people in DC work for the federal government. If you're looking to criticize people for living off of tax dollars, there's a lot less honorable ways of doing that than working a 9-5 in an underpaid public service job.