Selected Works of Patrick W. Hanifin, esq.

TO DWELL ON THE EARTH IN UNITY: Rice, Arakaki, AND THE GROWTH OF CITIZENSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS IN HAWAI`I

Interesting work explaining very clearly the history of citizenship and voting rights in Hawai’i – the idea that some sovereignty activists have about returning to a kanaka maoli only kingdom is belied by the history of citizenship within the Kingdom of Hawai’i.

For example:

In 1868, the Minister of the Interior rendered an official opinion that:

In the judgment of His MajestyÂ’’s government no one acquires citizenship in this Kingdom unless he is born here, or born abroad of Hawaiian parents (either native or naturalized) during their temporary absence from the Kingdom, or unless having been the subject of another power, he becomes the subject of this Kingdom by taking the oath of allegiance.

All the sovereignty activists trying to restore the kingdom should acknowledge that everyone born in Hawai’i should be counted as a Kingdom Citizen. All those who have started sovereignty movements by limiting participation to kanaka maoli only are clearly illegitimate by the laws of the kingdom they purport to represent (that means you DonnaHM).

HAWAIIAN REPARATIONS: NOTHING LOST, NOTHING OWED Patrick W. Hanifin XVII HAWAII BAR JOURNAL No. 2 (1982)

A very clear explanation of why kanaka maoli are not owed anything by the U.S. government, with nine challenging questions:

1. What did the alleged “victim” have at the time of the “theft?” If he did not have it, it could not have been stolen.
2. Of what the “victim” had, what did he have a moral right to at the time of the “theft?” If he had no moral right to it, he has no moral right to get it back or to get compensation for its loss.
3. What was taken from whom?
4. Assuming that what was taken was taken immorally, has any of it been restored?
5. If the “victims is dead, do any of his descendants inherit his moral claim for reparation?
6. Who, if anyone, inherits it?
7. Have any benefits been received by the victim” or his heirs as a result of the “thefts?
8. Should reparations be reduced by the amount of those benefits?
9. If people disagree on which moral principles decide these questions, how do we decide which is the true moral principle to be applied? This question is buried at the bottom of the whole discussion, for if there is no agreement on moral principle there can be no agreement that the reparations are morally due.

The strongest argument made is here:

Hawaiians today have exactly the same political rights as everyone else and exactly the same voting rights: one person–one vote. To claim any more than that because a minority of their ancestors had more power, or to claim reparations because a few of their ancestors may have lost political power is to claim a moral right to inherit political power. No one has any such right. Inheritance of political power is the principle of absolute monarchy, of aristocracy, and of racism. It has no place in democratic American society.