Replies

Wait, is this the new birther line of attack? That Hawaii somehow wasn't a "real" state but some kind of semi-state that hadn't really earned its statehood yet? People have been joking for years that birthers would eventually start demanding Hawaii's statehood certificate--has that day come?

But seriously: do you guys accept that Hawaii qualified as one of the United States for Article II purposes, or not? If so, why even bring up its remoteness or its multiculturalness--isn't that irrelevant?

I cannot speak for faucetman, but my point was that Hawaii was just BARELY a state, and had the Republicans not tried to make a deal with the Democrats, it is possible that it wouldn't have been a state at all. It would still have been a territory though, so the jurisdiction argument would still apply.

Apart from that, I believe faucetman is pointing out that a territory newly transformed into a state might not have been so picky about the veracity of their records. I point out that it is worse than that. As an Island destination, it was not at all uncommon during most of it's American History, for children to be born in transit on ships. As a result, it's laws are EXTREMELY lax in regards to concerns about actual PLACE of birth.

Any child born in transit could receive a Hawaiian birth certificate at the first Hawaiian port at which the ship arrived. One might think this is bad enough for the "place" argument, but it is even worse. Hawaii, by statue, will issue a birth certificate to the child of ANY Hawaiian resident, regardless where the child is born.

What this means is that unlike all the other states(as far as I know) Hawaii is the ONLY state that you cannot trust on the question of whether or not a child was really born there.

Do any other states have such a screwy law?

my point was that Hawaii was just BARELY a state, and had the Republicans not tried to make a deal with the Democrats, it is possible that it wouldn't have been a state at all.

I think that for the purposes of this discussion, "barely a state" is like "a little bit pregnant." Can we agree that birth in Hawaii counts as birth in the United States, and skip the "remote, multicultural, migratory island hub" nonsense?

unlike all the other states(as far as I know) Hawaii is the ONLY state that you cannot trust on the question of whether or not a child was really born there. Do any other states have such a screwy law?

I don't know--I don't know how we would know without researching all 49 other birth certificate policies. But that doesn't mean that said Hawaii birth certificate would list the child's birthplace as "Hawaii." I seriously doubt Hawaii was that lax.