To the editors:
In response to Shane Jemison’s recent commentary, I must respectfully disagree with the idea that Puerto Rico should become America’s 51st state. As a Puerto Rican who believes in our right to self-determination, I urge Oklahomans, especially conservatives, to look closely at what statehood would mean for your state and your country.
The support Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma) has signaled for statehood runs counter to the Republican Party platform and would directly harm Oklahoma’s influence in Washington. The U.S. House of Representatives is capped at 435 seats. Adding Puerto Rico would require reapportionment, potentially costing Oklahoma (and other states) seats in Congress. The island’s political leanings would almost certainly send two Democratic senators and several Democratic representatives (potentially even nationalists) to Congress, tilting the balance of power against Oklahoma’s conservative values. Do the U.S. and Oklahoma really need a tropical Québec in the union that resists assimilation and English-only policies? Of course not.
IN RESPONSE TO:
A winning strategy: Why Republicans should support Puerto Rico statehood by Shane Jemison
Financially, statehood is an even bigger problem. According to a 2014 Government Accountability Office report, statehood would destroy Puerto Rico’s economy. Statehood for Puerto Rico has also been estimated to increase federal expenditures by at least $10 billion annually, according to Puerto Rico’s pro-statehood governor. The federal government already had $40.7 billion in obligations to Puerto Rico in 2024, and in 2025, those obligations have ballooned to $95.9 billion.
About 43 percent of Puerto Ricans live in poverty, more than any other state, and more poverty would increase demands for welfare programs and other federal subsidies. That means billions more of your tax dollars would flow to a territory that has already received extensive federal aid for more than a century, without resolving its chronic poverty, economic instability, infrastructure failures and government corruption, particularly under the shady pro-statehood party. Statehood would deepen Puerto Rico’s dependence on federal aid, perpetuating a harmful cycle.
Puerto Rico is not Oklahoma. It is a separate Latin American nation in every meaningful sense. It has its own culture, national identity, history, legal traditions and Olympic team. The latest local polls show significant support for sovereignty (now 43 percent and growing) as support for statehood continues to decline. Forcing assimilation on a people who do not fully want it is a recipe for ongoing tension, strife and disunity.
A better path than statehood is national sovereignty — either complete independence or a compact of free association — allowing Puerto Rico to govern itself while maintaining mutually beneficial economic and diplomatic ties with the U.S. It would be a win-win for both countries. This option respects Puerto Ricans’ right to self-determination, safeguards Oklahoma’s representation and tax dollars and prevents a permanent leftward shift in U.S. politics.
For Oklahomans who value limited government, fiscal responsibility and the preservation of conservative principles, Puerto Rico’s sovereignty is the only path that makes sense.
Javier A. Hernández
San Juan, Puerto Rico
(Editor’s note: NonDoc runs Letters to the Editors of approximately 300 to 500 words. NonDoc reserves the right to edit lightly for length, style and grammar. We value a diverse set of voices respectfully discussing issues from different perspectives. To submit a letter for publication, please write to letters@nondoc.com.)
