Hawaiian Apartheid
Most of us are familiar at first hand with one form or another of invasive non-indigenous species that wreak havoc on the environment: kudzu and fire ants in the South, rabbits in Australia, the walking catfish in the Chesapeake Bay area. Some, like kudzu, were introduced intentionally. Many have been purely accidental, or at least unintentional, intrusions.
Many of the world’s extinct and endangered species have been eliminated or sorely pressed by such invaders. Nowhere is this more true than in the uniquely balanced and fragile ecosystems of islands. (Think Mauritius’ dodo, for example.)
Several Hawaiian islands have been invaded by a tiny two-inch long amphibian from Puerto Rico called the coqui frog. As the Washington Times reports, “beloved in its native Puerto Rico, the coqui frog has become a menace in Hawaii, where it suddenly appeared in the 1990s. With no natural predators, such as snakes, to keep their numbers under control, the frogs and their loud mating calls have multiplied exponentially — causing headaches for homeowners.
“Some believe the noisy amphibians also could cause serious damage to Hawaii’s economy if they drag down housing prices, which real estate agents say is a distinct possibility.” As state representative Clifton Tsuji exclaimed, “this is an invasive species of the worst kind. It’s a species of mass destruction.” The times continues, “some parts of the Big Island have infestations so large, authorities have been forced into containment mode.
“Brooks Kaiser, a University of Hawaii visiting scholar heading an economic impact study of the coqui, said living next to a major infestation could rival the experience of living next to an airport. Residents, for the most part, agree.”
But the coqui frog isn’t the only invasive species threatening Hawaii. An even more dangerous invasion is in prospect, that of the race-baiting politician.
Five years ago the Supreme Court of the United States voted 7-to-2 in Rice v. Cayetano to eliminate a race-based sytem. As Opinion Journal’s John Fund explains, “under that system non-Native Hawaiians were barred from voting for trustees overseeing the state’s Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The ruling, which was joined by liberal Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer, found that a Hawaiian law requiring that the trustees be Native Hawaiians and elected only by other Native Hawaiians was obviously discriminatory. ‘There can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race,’ wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. ‘In the eyes of government, we are just one race, it is American.’”
But in a bill now before the United States Senate, the “Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act” introduced by Hawaii’s Democratic Senator Daniel Akaka, what Fund characterizes as “supporters of racial restrictions” have sought to abandon colorblind government and “skirt the Fifteenth Amendment’s constitutional ban on race-based governments by requiring that Washington, D.C., recognize Native Hawaiians in the same manner it recognizes separate governments for American Indians and Alaska natives.
“That comparison, however, quickly falls apart. It’s true that the Founders (and the British before them) recognized Indian tribes to be separate, sovereign governments. They signed treaties with tribes and carved out territory for tribes to occupy — a system of separation that never led to equality. But in Hawaii, the history is demonstrably different. When the island chain became a state in 1959, there was a broad consensus in Congress that Native Hawaiians would not be treated as a separate racial group, and that they would not be transformed into an ‘Indian tribe.’ Indeed, Native Hawaiians have never asked to be recognized as an Indian tribe; they not only lack their own system of laws, but are widely geographically distributed throughout Hawaii and have a high rate of intermarriage with other groups.
“Reversing this policy with what would amount to federal recognition of a ‘tribe’ for Native Hawaiians today would create an independent state within a state that would lie outside the Constitution and laws of the United States as well as those of the state of Hawaii. The Akaka bill would also authorize the transfer of a portion of Hawaii’s state-owned lands, natural resources and other assets to the new race-based government (at no cost to that new government, of course). Hawaiians would also be unable to fight back, as the state does not allow for referendums. And, just as on American Indian land, a shopkeeper who is part Hawaiian could claim exemption from state taxes and other laws, giving him an advantage over his next-door, non-Native Hawaiian competitor.”
But it’s actually even worse than that. In a recent letter to his constituents, Republican Senator John Kyl of Arizona, chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, explained the substance of an opposition study he had performed. The letter was reprinted in the Honolulu Advertiser in “Akaka Bill a Recipe for Racial Conflict”. As Senator Kyl wrote, “While I support efforts to preserve the heritage and culture of Native Hawaiians, I oppose this bill. By creating a separate, race-based government within the state of Hawai'i, (it) would violate the United States Constitution and create a divisive and unworkable system of government.
“The Akaka bill would authorize persons with some Native Hawaiian blood to form a Native Hawaiian government. This government would have powers identical to those of a reservation Indian tribe — the power to tax, regulate and make laws for its members.
“On a practical level, it is difficult to imagine how such a government would interact with the rest of Hawai'i’s people.
“Tribal Indians on a reservation generally are immune from state laws — from the taxes and regulations that apply to other residents of the state. But unlike reservation Indians, Native Hawaiians do not live in one area of the state that is set aside for Indians. They live in the same cities and neighborhoods, and on the same streets, as other (residents of Hawai'i) do.
“Would the citizens of the new Native Hawaiian government — like reservation Indians — be immune from state laws, regulations and taxes? Would a Native Hawaiian-owned business — like a reservation Indian business — be exempt from the taxes that its non-Native competitors must pay? If Congress were to create a separate tribal government for Native Hawaiians, it would be imposing just such a system on the people of Hawai'i.
“Persons of different races, who live together in the same society, would be subject to different legal codes. This would not produce racial reconciliation in Hawai'i. Instead, it is a recipe for permanent racial conflict.
“I believe that the Akaka bill also violates the U.S. Constitution. The tribal governments on Indian reservations in the continental United States were preserved as separate entities when their surrounding states entered the union. These governments are not subject to the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
“The proposed Native Hawaiian government likewise would not be bound by the Bill of Rights. But unlike reservation Indians, all of Hawai'i’s citizens have been subject to state law ever since Hawai'i entered the union — and all Hawaiians receive the full protection of the Bill of Rights.
“By subjecting Native Hawaiians to a government that is not bound by the Constitution, the Akaka bill effectively would take away these constitutional rights from persons who currently enjoy their protection. This is something that I believe Congress neither can nor should do.”
So it’s hardly surprising that, as Fund observes, “there is strong public skepticism in Hawaii about the establishment of what would amount to racial enclaves. ‘It’s telling that there have been no public hearings organized by the state, the University of Hawaii, the state’s congressional delegation or the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to determine if there actually is support for the Akaka Bill,’ says Malia Zimmerman, the editor of the news service HawaiiReporter.com. ‘There is a complete atmosphere of silence in the state government and mainstream media about this bill's weaknesses.’
“Even with debate smothered, a poll conducted by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii this month found that two out of three state residents oppose the Akaka bill, including 48% of Native Hawaiians. While some natives oppose the Akaka bill because they support complete independence, most native opponents see no need for a new layer of government ruling over them. Native Hawaiians have never experienced the kind of oppressive treatment American Indians have had to endure. The U.S. did overthrow Queen Lydia Liliuokalani in 1893, something Congress has since apologized for, but what followed in no way compares to the plight of many tribes in the continental United States, in part because Native-Hawaiians weren’t pushed into reservations. Also, for the past 30 years, Native Hawaiians have been the beneficiary of many targeted housing, education and welfare benefits.
“But guilt is a powerful political weapon, and Hawaii’s major politicians have fallen completely into line as lobbyists for the Akaka bill. Among them is Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, who is said to have convinced herself that her party’s ability to compete for Native Hawaiian votes is linked to support of the Akaka bill.” Indeed, along with Mark J. Bennett, she penned an opinion editorial for the same issue of the Honolulu Advertiser in which Kyl’s letter appeared, arguing that the bill “neither further balkanizes the United States nor sets up a race-based separate government in Hawai'i.
“It provides a simple measure of justice and fairness to Native Hawaiians.”
Read her editorial and see whether you believe she has effectively refuted any of Kyl’s or Fund’s substantive arguments I have reproduced here. In my opinion she does not, effectively countering only a variety of straw man arguments she adduces herself.
Lingle “claims to have helped convince six Republican senators, including Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, to support the measure. If she is right,” declares Fund, “that means there will be a bare 51 vote majority for the Akaka bill when the full Senate votes on it next week. Since the House has previously passed similar versions of this bill, it is likely to approve this one as well. The Bush administration has remained neutral on the bill, although it suggested it be amended to better protect the interests of U.S. military bases and to limit casino gambling.”
Ominously, however, as Bruce Fein pointed out in the Washington Times, “proponents oppose any amendment, for example, a requirement of approval by a majority of adult Native Hawaiians before all Native Hawaiians are subjected to the new race-based government; a prohibition on racial, religious or ethnic discrimination; a proscription on secession; an injunction against evicting the U.S. military from Pearl Harbor; or, an obligation to honor the Bill of Rights. They even reject a requiring a plebiscite in Hawaii to determine if its citizens wish to carve out of every island multiple sovereign racial enclaves.”
Fein notes that the majority of Hawaiian citizens oppose the bill and adds that “these percentages are stunning because the government of Hawaii has spent millions propagandizing in favor of the race-based legislation over several years. They discredit the representations of the governor of Hawaii and Hawaii's two senators and two representatives that the people of Hawaii overwhelming covet a race-based sovereign.” This is in sharp contrast to “a Hawaiian plebiscite [which] was held in 1959 over statehood; 94 percent of the voters approved, including a majority of Native Hawaiians.”
As Fein declares, “the Akaka Bill is unconstitutional, racist, divisive and subversive of American unity. It deserves the same repudiation as Jim Crow laws.” The Senate should reject this bill – and the House should be ashamed for passing it.
Many of the world’s extinct and endangered species have been eliminated or sorely pressed by such invaders. Nowhere is this more true than in the uniquely balanced and fragile ecosystems of islands. (Think Mauritius’ dodo, for example.)
Several Hawaiian islands have been invaded by a tiny two-inch long amphibian from Puerto Rico called the coqui frog. As the Washington Times reports, “beloved in its native Puerto Rico, the coqui frog has become a menace in Hawaii, where it suddenly appeared in the 1990s. With no natural predators, such as snakes, to keep their numbers under control, the frogs and their loud mating calls have multiplied exponentially — causing headaches for homeowners.
“Some believe the noisy amphibians also could cause serious damage to Hawaii’s economy if they drag down housing prices, which real estate agents say is a distinct possibility.” As state representative Clifton Tsuji exclaimed, “this is an invasive species of the worst kind. It’s a species of mass destruction.” The times continues, “some parts of the Big Island have infestations so large, authorities have been forced into containment mode.
“Brooks Kaiser, a University of Hawaii visiting scholar heading an economic impact study of the coqui, said living next to a major infestation could rival the experience of living next to an airport. Residents, for the most part, agree.”
But the coqui frog isn’t the only invasive species threatening Hawaii. An even more dangerous invasion is in prospect, that of the race-baiting politician.
Five years ago the Supreme Court of the United States voted 7-to-2 in Rice v. Cayetano to eliminate a race-based sytem. As Opinion Journal’s John Fund explains, “under that system non-Native Hawaiians were barred from voting for trustees overseeing the state’s Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The ruling, which was joined by liberal Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer, found that a Hawaiian law requiring that the trustees be Native Hawaiians and elected only by other Native Hawaiians was obviously discriminatory. ‘There can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race,’ wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. ‘In the eyes of government, we are just one race, it is American.’”
But in a bill now before the United States Senate, the “Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act” introduced by Hawaii’s Democratic Senator Daniel Akaka, what Fund characterizes as “supporters of racial restrictions” have sought to abandon colorblind government and “skirt the Fifteenth Amendment’s constitutional ban on race-based governments by requiring that Washington, D.C., recognize Native Hawaiians in the same manner it recognizes separate governments for American Indians and Alaska natives.
“That comparison, however, quickly falls apart. It’s true that the Founders (and the British before them) recognized Indian tribes to be separate, sovereign governments. They signed treaties with tribes and carved out territory for tribes to occupy — a system of separation that never led to equality. But in Hawaii, the history is demonstrably different. When the island chain became a state in 1959, there was a broad consensus in Congress that Native Hawaiians would not be treated as a separate racial group, and that they would not be transformed into an ‘Indian tribe.’ Indeed, Native Hawaiians have never asked to be recognized as an Indian tribe; they not only lack their own system of laws, but are widely geographically distributed throughout Hawaii and have a high rate of intermarriage with other groups.
“Reversing this policy with what would amount to federal recognition of a ‘tribe’ for Native Hawaiians today would create an independent state within a state that would lie outside the Constitution and laws of the United States as well as those of the state of Hawaii. The Akaka bill would also authorize the transfer of a portion of Hawaii’s state-owned lands, natural resources and other assets to the new race-based government (at no cost to that new government, of course). Hawaiians would also be unable to fight back, as the state does not allow for referendums. And, just as on American Indian land, a shopkeeper who is part Hawaiian could claim exemption from state taxes and other laws, giving him an advantage over his next-door, non-Native Hawaiian competitor.”
But it’s actually even worse than that. In a recent letter to his constituents, Republican Senator John Kyl of Arizona, chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, explained the substance of an opposition study he had performed. The letter was reprinted in the Honolulu Advertiser in “Akaka Bill a Recipe for Racial Conflict”. As Senator Kyl wrote, “While I support efforts to preserve the heritage and culture of Native Hawaiians, I oppose this bill. By creating a separate, race-based government within the state of Hawai'i, (it) would violate the United States Constitution and create a divisive and unworkable system of government.
“The Akaka bill would authorize persons with some Native Hawaiian blood to form a Native Hawaiian government. This government would have powers identical to those of a reservation Indian tribe — the power to tax, regulate and make laws for its members.
“On a practical level, it is difficult to imagine how such a government would interact with the rest of Hawai'i’s people.
“Tribal Indians on a reservation generally are immune from state laws — from the taxes and regulations that apply to other residents of the state. But unlike reservation Indians, Native Hawaiians do not live in one area of the state that is set aside for Indians. They live in the same cities and neighborhoods, and on the same streets, as other (residents of Hawai'i) do.
“Would the citizens of the new Native Hawaiian government — like reservation Indians — be immune from state laws, regulations and taxes? Would a Native Hawaiian-owned business — like a reservation Indian business — be exempt from the taxes that its non-Native competitors must pay? If Congress were to create a separate tribal government for Native Hawaiians, it would be imposing just such a system on the people of Hawai'i.
“Persons of different races, who live together in the same society, would be subject to different legal codes. This would not produce racial reconciliation in Hawai'i. Instead, it is a recipe for permanent racial conflict.
“I believe that the Akaka bill also violates the U.S. Constitution. The tribal governments on Indian reservations in the continental United States were preserved as separate entities when their surrounding states entered the union. These governments are not subject to the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
“The proposed Native Hawaiian government likewise would not be bound by the Bill of Rights. But unlike reservation Indians, all of Hawai'i’s citizens have been subject to state law ever since Hawai'i entered the union — and all Hawaiians receive the full protection of the Bill of Rights.
“By subjecting Native Hawaiians to a government that is not bound by the Constitution, the Akaka bill effectively would take away these constitutional rights from persons who currently enjoy their protection. This is something that I believe Congress neither can nor should do.”
So it’s hardly surprising that, as Fund observes, “there is strong public skepticism in Hawaii about the establishment of what would amount to racial enclaves. ‘It’s telling that there have been no public hearings organized by the state, the University of Hawaii, the state’s congressional delegation or the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to determine if there actually is support for the Akaka Bill,’ says Malia Zimmerman, the editor of the news service HawaiiReporter.com. ‘There is a complete atmosphere of silence in the state government and mainstream media about this bill's weaknesses.’
“Even with debate smothered, a poll conducted by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii this month found that two out of three state residents oppose the Akaka bill, including 48% of Native Hawaiians. While some natives oppose the Akaka bill because they support complete independence, most native opponents see no need for a new layer of government ruling over them. Native Hawaiians have never experienced the kind of oppressive treatment American Indians have had to endure. The U.S. did overthrow Queen Lydia Liliuokalani in 1893, something Congress has since apologized for, but what followed in no way compares to the plight of many tribes in the continental United States, in part because Native-Hawaiians weren’t pushed into reservations. Also, for the past 30 years, Native Hawaiians have been the beneficiary of many targeted housing, education and welfare benefits.
“But guilt is a powerful political weapon, and Hawaii’s major politicians have fallen completely into line as lobbyists for the Akaka bill. Among them is Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, who is said to have convinced herself that her party’s ability to compete for Native Hawaiian votes is linked to support of the Akaka bill.” Indeed, along with Mark J. Bennett, she penned an opinion editorial for the same issue of the Honolulu Advertiser in which Kyl’s letter appeared, arguing that the bill “neither further balkanizes the United States nor sets up a race-based separate government in Hawai'i.
“It provides a simple measure of justice and fairness to Native Hawaiians.”
Read her editorial and see whether you believe she has effectively refuted any of Kyl’s or Fund’s substantive arguments I have reproduced here. In my opinion she does not, effectively countering only a variety of straw man arguments she adduces herself.
Lingle “claims to have helped convince six Republican senators, including Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, to support the measure. If she is right,” declares Fund, “that means there will be a bare 51 vote majority for the Akaka bill when the full Senate votes on it next week. Since the House has previously passed similar versions of this bill, it is likely to approve this one as well. The Bush administration has remained neutral on the bill, although it suggested it be amended to better protect the interests of U.S. military bases and to limit casino gambling.”
Ominously, however, as Bruce Fein pointed out in the Washington Times, “proponents oppose any amendment, for example, a requirement of approval by a majority of adult Native Hawaiians before all Native Hawaiians are subjected to the new race-based government; a prohibition on racial, religious or ethnic discrimination; a proscription on secession; an injunction against evicting the U.S. military from Pearl Harbor; or, an obligation to honor the Bill of Rights. They even reject a requiring a plebiscite in Hawaii to determine if its citizens wish to carve out of every island multiple sovereign racial enclaves.”
Fein notes that the majority of Hawaiian citizens oppose the bill and adds that “these percentages are stunning because the government of Hawaii has spent millions propagandizing in favor of the race-based legislation over several years. They discredit the representations of the governor of Hawaii and Hawaii's two senators and two representatives that the people of Hawaii overwhelming covet a race-based sovereign.” This is in sharp contrast to “a Hawaiian plebiscite [which] was held in 1959 over statehood; 94 percent of the voters approved, including a majority of Native Hawaiians.”
As Fein declares, “the Akaka Bill is unconstitutional, racist, divisive and subversive of American unity. It deserves the same repudiation as Jim Crow laws.” The Senate should reject this bill – and the House should be ashamed for passing it.
posted by Ken at 4:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home