Akaka Bill defines native Hawaiian broadly - Hawaii News

Da Aloha spirit does exist in everyone as, Grace Ohtani has seen.

A moke

I am not native Hawaiian, but because I resided in Oahu while attending UH...I want a piece of the action. where is my plot of land?

Talk about discrimination. the akaka bill is full of it. think about it. raciscism at its best.

So is a person with a 1/64th quantum considered Hawaiian or some other race. The question posed about the Akaka bill remains unanswered.

Ku'e... The Republicans are nervous that they can no longer hold back the Akaka Bill.

Does a native Hawaiian have to be a citizen of the U.S and reside in Hawaii in order to benefit from the Akaka Bill???? Did Kau Inoa claim that there are native Hawaiians (by blood ) in 99 countries and 6 continents???? The bill may lead to opening a can of worms.

nomomonee wrote:

Does a native Hawaiian have to be a citizen of the U.S and reside in Hawaii in order to benefit from the Akaka Bill???? Did Kau Inoa claim that there are native Hawaiians (by blood ) in 99 countries and 6 continents???? The bill may lead to opening a can of worms.

Absentee Beneficiaries are not allowed. Discussion over this viability infers that "by proxy" beneficiaries can cause complications & result in a major liability destroying this measure.

The bill is illegala dn will be thrown out by the Supreme Court in 6 years. Race-based discrimination is illegal.

nomomonee wrote:

Does a native Hawaiian have to be a citizen of the U.S and reside in Hawaii in order to benefit from the Akaka Bill???? Did Kau Inoa claim that there are native Hawaiians (by blood ) in 99 countries and 6 continents???? The bill may lead to opening a can of worms.

one of the points hoped for in the Akaka Bill is to prevent retail sell off of the land for a dollar. Land lasts a million more years than a dollar in the hand does. Who benefits? Racial exclusion? As one stands here on the Islands is the extent of Racial exclusion. Are there implications that the Akaka Bill should address Racial exclusivity throughout the U.S. as whole? Look to your heart.

One may also blog from Kennebunkpoo, Maine about all the racivity by Hawaiians and how terrible they are and feel all the racism by Hawaiians, and prove the dysfunction of the Akaka Bill. That is the freedom you have as an American.

yeah but...

you said: "native Hawaiian is defined as being of the indigenous, native people of Hawaii who were in the Hawaiian Islands on or before Jan. 1, 1893..."

the bill also provides us with definitions for "indigenous native people" and that definition uses the term "aboriginal indigenous native people" and the bill provides a definition for that term as well.

careful reading of these definitions boils down to this:

native hawaiian means the people congress has recognized as the original inhabitants of lands that later became part of the united states.

The United States Code is the documentation of congressional actions. The term original inhabitants appears only a few times in the USC, and each time the term is related to specifically to Hawaii...

after reviewing who congress had recognized everyone who lived in hawaii prior to 1893 as an original inhabitant.

this may seem a ridiculous assertion...but then how closely have you looked into this? The courts are sure to examine the language of the bill in minute detail should the question arise (remember freddy?)

don't take my word for it ...do your homework.

david

David Ingham wrote:

yeah but...
you said: "native Hawaiian is defined as being of the indigenous, native people of Hawaii who were in the Hawaiian Islands on or before Jan. 1, 1893..."
the bill also provides us with definitions for "indigenous native people" and that definition uses the term "aboriginal indigenous native people" and the bill provides a definition for that term as well.
careful reading of these definitions boils down to this:
native hawaiian means the people congress has recognized as the original inhabitants of lands that later became part of the united states.
The United States Code is the documentation of congressional actions. The term original inhabitants appears only a few times in the USC, and each time the term is related to specifically to Hawaii...
after reviewing who congress had recognized everyone who lived in hawaii prior to 1893 as an original inhabitant.
this may seem a ridiculous assertion...but then how closely have you looked into this? The courts are sure to examine the language of the bill in minute detail should the question arise (remember freddy?)
don't take my word for it ...do your homework.
david

The Stronger contention from your viewpoint is that natives should rightfully just stepaside in all fairness and eventually the Irish Jewish Aryan element should rule.

"In essence, anybody who can prove they're Hawaiian could fall under this definition," she said."

Wait. So let me get this straight. You mean anybody who is Hawaiian is then a Hawaiian.

Wow!

Amazing. Who wouldah thunk it.

Now watch all the racist Hawaiian wannabees come out of the woodwork and cry racism for someone having the audacity to presume that a Hawaiian is a Hawaiian is a Hawaiian.

I want my piece. I umm stay Hawaiian, after all I put the pig in the imu kinda sorta. IMAU!

The Akaka Bill should it pass will not be allowed to be implemented.

Native hawaiians are NOT the original people's of these islands

Native hawaiians are owed nothing other than the opportunities all Americans enjoy.

Pat wrote:

The Akaka Bill should it pass will not be allowed to be implemented.
Native hawaiians are NOT the original people's of these islands
Native hawaiians are owed nothing other than the opportunities all Americans enjoy.

May you receive a freeway overpass & rail station on your rooftop. My loyal American!

Don't you love it how when they can't argue history... either because they don't know it or have been indoctrinated in the myth of the overthrow...
soooooo they result to name calling and blaming all their troubles on whitey.
So typically local. Sad. Aloha indeed.

No.

dewdalohajoey wrote:

No.

When does your "no," really mean "no"?