[curiosity]

The text supporting my contention that out-of-state births could be reported by the local register prior to 1982 is provided, quoted and analyzed in context by Hemenway at the links I provided.

Nonsense. There is no provision in the 1957 law for the legal registration of foriegn births. It simply does not exist, as anyone who actually read the text for himself would know.

But of course, like a typical birther, you never read primary source material for yourself, so you wouldn't know.

[Seizethecarp]

For those who are interested, Hemenway explains and asks the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to take judicial notice of exactly how the HI Territorial Law 57 allowed the local registrar to record births as Hawaiian births with so little verification that the birth literally could have occurred anywhere. You be the judge:

V. THE GREATER LATITUDE UNDER THE TERRITORIAL STATUTE TO GET A “BIRTH CERTIFICATE” ALTHOUGH NOT CERTIFIABLY BORN IN HAWAII

We believe that the Court is obligated to take judicial notice of the attached territorial statute and, in doing so take judicial notice that there are ways that a “birth certificate” can have been obtained for a child under that statute that are allowed greater latitude for such a “birth certificate” to have been obtained that would be restricted under the present statute, so that the present statute allows for a child to have been born outside the state and still have been issued a Hawaiian “birth certificate,” but does so without the same breadth of possibilities for that having happened as was possible under the attached territorial statute.

For example, under § 57-9(a) allows for a situation where the official then knows as the “local registrar” can obtain information from “any person having knowledge of the birth” and prepare and file the birth certificate. We ask the Court to take notice of the latitude for inaccurate information that is thus created. Further, § 57-9(b) allows there to be a filing of a certificate of birth on which required information is simply missing and can thus be filed by a “supplementary report” and yet the filing of initially unsupplied information by a “supplementary report is not considered as causing that report with information that was not supplied at the outset to be treated as “delayed” or “altered.” It must be noticed that this creates great latitude for mistakes or even abuse of requirements. Thus, although § 57-18 gives the same time frame—one year—that was incorporated in the 1982 state statute, for a “delayed” or “altered” certificate, the procedures give greater latitude for there to be mistakes and abuse of the procedures and for incomplete information.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2423856/posts?page=1