It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by youdidntseeme
Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
Are you certain of that? I would have assumed Hawaii was a US territory and its residents were US citizens before it was granted statehood, much in the same manner as Puerto Rico and other US territories' residents.
I was just splitting hairs there.
The residents in Hawaii were considered US Nationals, not citizens.
Until that is the Hawaiian people voted for statehood.
At that point they became citizens.
The residents of Uerto Rico are citizens because of the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917, but the act only included residents of Puerto Rico.edit on 21-1-2011 by youdidntseeme because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
Thanks for answering. I wasn't sure and I am still unsure about those in other US territories. Puerto Ricans are US citizens, I am fairly sure, but then Puerto Rico is a US commonwealth. Apparently that status is somewhere in-between statehood and territory. My curiosity is now piqued to look into that but I would miss much of this discussion if I took the time now to pursue those answers. I hope you understand I was being respectful when I asked that earlier, I truly wanted to know.
Puerto Ricans have some very strong opinions regarding statehood. It is a heated topic and one that is best not discussed by visitors there.
edit on 21-1-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.
Originally posted by guohua
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
I have read all your posts here and I'd like to submit this one for you to consider.
From: statehoodhawaii.org...
As we look at the July 27th 1959 plebiscite, and consider its importance in the statehood process, we should consider that of the 132,773 who voted for Proposition 1—“Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State?”—7,971 voted against it. In this 17-1 mandate by those voting in Hawaii’s 1959 primary election for governor, a total of 140,744 votes were cast in this plebiscite.
Now this I think supports my last statement in my above post. From the same source.
What this suggests is that those who did not participate in the primary election either did not care about the statehood results, or were not informed about the process enough to participate in the vote. The underwhelming turnout for something so important is of concern. Considering that the State of Hawaii cites this plebiscite vote as determinate proof of public support for statehood creates what Daniel Elazar, Professor of Political Science at Temple University in Philadelphia describes as an ersatz legitimacy of a democratic technique to the political decision making process.
Again the source is: statehoodhawaii.org...
Here is the Ballot I understand that they used for the vote.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7315b02bf2d2.jpg[/atsimg]
I'm sorry but the entire ballot did not post, you can view here: statehoodhawaii.org...
edit on 21-1-2011 by guohua because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Shadowfoot
reply to post by youdidntseeme
You are only correct in so far as the ones that voted were the people moved there to work for DOLE and from the 1890's until said vote. This would of never passed any earlier say even 30 years from what I have seen. Doesnt mainland American history show the same thing to you?...sure Kentucky and Ohio voted for statehood once enough American colonists moved there displacing the Shawnee, Wyandottes and Cherokee. Your argument is one sided in this regard and totally biased towards the USA's imperiliast agenda. Hawaii was coveted by Dole enterprises as well as for military interests..its pretty darned black and white if you could shed your bias and narrow scope of view.
Originally posted by UluaHuntah808
Yes the 1959 statehood document does exists. But is there a "TREATY OF ANNEXATION" between the US and the Hawaiian Kingdom that allows this document to be legal? We were taught in the public schools that it did exist. Research by scholars such as Sai, had proved that it doesn't exist. So how can the jurisdiction of the US pass its borders into Hawaii unless it is done illegally?
Originally posted by youdidntseeme
Originally posted by UluaHuntah808
Yes the 1959 statehood document does exists. But is there a "TREATY OF ANNEXATION" between the US and the Hawaiian Kingdom that allows this document to be legal? We were taught in the public schools that it did exist. Research by scholars such as Sai, had proved that it doesn't exist. So how can the jurisdiction of the US pass its borders into Hawaii unless it is done illegally?
So are you arguing that the Hawaiian people never agreed to an annexation?
Originally posted by youdidntseeme
reply to post by guohua
Here is a copy of the treaty without weeding through everything.
source
Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
I think this has a lot more ground to stand on than some of you are giving credit to...
Read the whole OP and then take a look at the site he references. If they are teaching this at the Universities there, then there could very well be strong merit to it.
By the time a legal decision is made, we'll be past Obama's time as President. If this argument holds up in court, it will create blowback for Hawaii the likes of which I don't think they have ever seen.
S&F OP for at the very least, putting a new spin on the birth validity.
~Namaste
Originally posted by youdidntseeme
reply to post by guohua
Here is a copy of the treaty without weeding through everything.
source
Originally posted by guohua
reply to post by UluaHuntah808
You might try: historymystery.grassrootinstitute.org... -a-webpage/
Hawaiian independence (secession) activists keep saying “There was never a treaty of annexation between Hawaii and the U.S.” If that were true, then Hawaii would still rightfully be the independent nation it once was. And that would make the secessionists very happy. If there was never any cession, then there doesn’t need to be any secession. Just get the U.S., or the United Nations, or the World Court to recognize it.
But indeed there was a treaty. Annexation was well and truly done. A new webpage provides the full text of the Treaty of Annexation, and the resolutions whereby both the government of Hawaii and the government of the U.S. agreed to it. There’s also a discussion about the politics of annexation in 1898 and 2010.
So find out the truth. Go see the treaty for yourself, at :
www.angelfire.com...
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION -- the politics of the Treaty of Annexation, then and now
TREATY OF ANNEXATION BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE OF HAWAII RATIFYING THE TREATY OF ANNEXATION.
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE U.S. SENATE AND U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SIGNED BY PRESIDENT MCKINLEY, TO ACCEPT THE TREATY OF ANNEXATION OFFERED BY THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII (also known as the "Newlands Resolution" named after the Congressman who introduced it)
EXCERPT FROM PRESIDENT MCKINLEY'S STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE OF DECEMBER 6, 1897. The length of this excerpt indicates the importance he placed on ratifying the Treaty of Annexation.
Go here to read it if you really want to: www.angelfire.com...
edit on 21-1-2011 by guohua because: (no reason given)edit on 21-1-2011 by guohua because: (no reason given)edit on 21-1-2011 by guohua because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by UluaHuntah808
BTW, be careful who you get your information from. There are some individuals and organizations in hawaii who make it their lifes goal in trying to deceive people who trying to find out the truth about hawaiian history. Grassroots of hawaii and its members are one of those! Those that are new to Hawaiian history are most vulnerable.
I say do the research yourself and you will be able to distinguish disinformation from truth.
Originally posted by youdidntseeme
Originally posted by UluaHuntah808
BTW, be careful who you get your information from. There are some individuals and organizations in hawaii who make it their lifes goal in trying to deceive people who trying to find out the truth about hawaiian history. Grassroots of hawaii and its members are one of those! Those that are new to Hawaiian history are most vulnerable.
I say do the research yourself and you will be able to distinguish disinformation from truth.
Just as there are some on the other side as well.
Every point will have its supporters and dissenters.
Grassroots of Hawaii are on one side, and you are on another.
So we should be skeptical of both, until we are educated enough to distinguish.
The U.S. took possession of the islands on March 31, 1917 and the territory was renamed the Virgin Islands of the United States.[citation needed] U.S. citizenship was granted to the inhabitants of the islands in 1927.
That is why the 2 attempts to annex hawaii failed in congress.
Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by UluaHuntah808
That is why the 2 attempts to annex hawaii failed in congress.
I just thought that I'd throw out there that, according to the Wikipedia page for the Hawaiian Admission Act, two attempts to annex Hawai'i failed in Congress, not because of protests in Hawai'i, but because of the racial prejudices of many members of Congress during that time.
I guess one has got to take it for what they think it's worth though. I must say that that reason sounds infinitely more plausible than the United States Congress backing away because of a few people's disagreements.