Who are Hawaiian Citizens and Hawaiian Subjects?
“Nationality” means the legal bond between a person and a State and does not indicate the person’s ethnic origin. Everyone has the right to a nationality. (European Convention on Nationality)
One of the earliest laws in Hawaiʻi dealt with citizenship (nationality – not ethnicity;) it was part of King Kamehameha III’s Statute Laws 1845-1846. The Chapter for that law was headed: “Of Subjects and Foreigners” and the specific Article was labeled “Aliens, Denizens and Natives.”
Following is the law concerning Hawaiian citizenship, part of King Kamehameha III’s Statute Laws 1845-1846 (first, the original law in Hawaiian; then, the English translation:)
Pauku 3. O na kanaka a pau i hanau malalo o ka malu o keia Aupuni, ina na na makua o ke Aupuni e, a ina na haole hoohiki i kanaka Hawaii, a ina na na kanaka maoli, a me ka poe i hanau ma ka aina e, ina no keia Aupuni na makua, a mahope hele mai na keiki e noho haanei, e manaoia kela poe a pau, he aie i ka hoolohe i ka Moi, ke alii ka lakou ma ka hanau ana, a e kau no ke kanawai o keia Aupuni maluna o lakou.
O na kanaka a pau i hanau ma na aina e, ina no ka aina e na makua, a hoohiki ole hoi e like me ka olelo iloko o keia haawina alaila. e manaoia lakou he lahui e, a e hanaia’ku lakou e na’lii o keia Aupuni pela, e like nae me ka olelo o ke kanawai.
Section III. All persons born within the jurisdiction of this kingdom, whether of alien foreigners, of naturalized or of native parents, and all persons born abroad of a parent native of this kingdom, and afterwards coming to reside in this, shall be deemed to owe native allegiance to His Majesty.
All such persons shall be amenable to the laws of this kingdom as native subjects. All persons born abroad of foreign parents, shall, unless duly naturalized, as in this article prescribed, be deemed aliens, and treated as such, pursuant to the laws. (Ka Huli Ao Digital Archives – Punawaiola-org)
Hawaiʻi followed the Anglo-American common law rule of “jus soli;” those born in the country and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. The common law rule traces back to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066.
Subsequent interpretation of the laws and practices affirmed who were Hawaiian citizens and what rights and obligations they possessed.
In 1850, HW Whitney, born in Hawaiʻi of foreign parents, asked the Minister of the Interior, John Young II, about his status. The question was referred to Asher B Bates, legal adviser to the Government, who replied …
… “not only the Hawaiian Statutes but the Law of Nations, grant to an individual born under the Sovereignty of this Kingdom, an inalienable right, to all of the rights and privileges of a subject.” (Hanifin)
In 1856, the Kingdom’s Supreme Court decided Naone v. Thurston, recognizing that persons born in Hawaiʻi of foreign parents were Hawaiian subjects.
On January 21, 1868, the Minister of the Interior for the Hawaiian Kingdom, His Excellency Ferdinand Hutchison, stated the criteria for Hawaiian nationality:
“In the judgment of His Majesty’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 a subject of this kingdom by taking the oath of allegiance.”
Subsequent laws through the Republic, Territory and State provide that “All persons born or naturalized in the Hawaiian Islands, and subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic, are citizens thereof.”
Today, there remain ongoing claims and discussions about restoring the Hawaiian Government that was deposed on January 17, 1893 and replaced by the Provisional Government of Hawaiʻi, later the Republic of Hawaiʻi, then annexation and statehood.
The Hawaiian nation was overthrown … not the Hawaiian race (it was a constitutional monarchy, not race-limited.)
Yet, to date, apparently, the only people permitted to exercise their rights related to discussions on restoration, reparation, sovereignty, independence, etc related to the Hawaiian nation have been those of one race, the Native Hawaiians.
In the ongoing nation-building exercise, lately there was Kau Inoa (registration of Native Hawaiians in Hawaiʻi and abroad who will be a part of the new Hawaiian nation and receive benefits provided by the new government,) later Kanaʻiolowalu (registration on an Official Roll and joining together to rebuild a Hawaiian nation,) and now Na‘i Aupuni (who are guiding an election, convention and ratification process where Hawaiians who wish to participate can be heard.)
Kanaʻiolowalu limits participation to “lineal descendant[s] of the people who lived and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian islands prior to 1778”; a goal of the registration is “self-recognition of our unrelinquished sovereignty”. The latter and latest, suggests an ʻAha (“convention … gathering of elected delegates”) that may conduct a ratification vote.
Likewise, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (Akaka Bill,) and groups like Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi, Nation of Hawaiʻi, Ka Pakaukau, Poka Laenui, Hawaiian Kingdom, Hawaiian Kingdom Government and the rest seem to seek to restore or reclaim on behalf of Native Hawaiian. (This does not even count the endless rhetoric on social media.)
A Hawaiian citizen or subject is someone that has the political status of being a Hawaiian national. And it’s not limited to the native race or the aboriginal blood. (Keanu Sai)
If annexation did not happen, today descendants of Hawaiʻi-born or foreign-born naturalized Hawaiian citizens (with no proof of later naturalization to another nation) are still Hawaiian subjects, as their predecessors were in the Kingdom era. (Keanu Sai)
All Hawaiian citizens lost their nation in 1893 … Hawaiian citizens with their varying ethnicities, not just those who lived in the Islands prior to 1778.
Listening to the ongoing rhetoric, some seen to argue that only those of the Hawaiian race have rights and benefits of the Hawaiian kingdom (including claims to the ceded lands).
Why aren’t all Hawaiian citizens included in the recognition and sovereignty discussions and decisions today?
The kingdom was not raced based; all citizens (Native Hawaiians, born here or naturalized) have “an inalienable right, to all of the rights and privileges of a subject.”
(The text and translation of documents here are from Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law, William S. Richardson School of Law.)
Follow Peter T Young on Facebook
Follow Peter T Young on Google+
Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn
Follow Peter T Young on Blogger
I stumbled upon your blog today, and I couldn’t believe it. This is fantastic! The histories of the various places you write about is exactly the kind of thing I wonder about on a daily basis as I live and work on Oahu. Topics like how the waterfront of Honolulu Harbor has changed over the years are beyond fascinating to me and I look forward to pouring over all the old posts in your blog. Thanks and keep up the great work!!
I appreciate your clear definition of Hawaiian Citizenship. I never understood why only “Native Hawaiians” could be included in Hawaiian nation. The Native Hawaiians were only those of the Hawaiian race have rights and benefits of the Hawaiian kingdom (including claims to the ceded lands). I would be considered “Native Hawaiian” and agree with your findings. The way you broke it down make complete sense to me. Thank you so much for the clarity
Over the years, I’ve had many a friendly argument with monarchists. My argument has always been, ”what’s the difference between the descendants of a genetic Pacific Islander, perhaps from an island called “Morea” who migrated eastward in a small wooden boat who sets-up citizenship on a little island called Maui… versus the descendants of a genetic Nordsman from a larger island called “Ireland” who migrates westward in a metal boat who also arrives on the same island and whose children were born prior to Jan 17, 1893 just like his Polynesian counterpart? Both children were equally subject to the same laws established by the Monarchy we’re they not?
Thank you very much for adding more helpful information to be considered in order for each of us to come to our own conclusions on this controversial topic, which is likely to remain controversial.
The difference between nationality and citizenship varies from country to country, depending on the legal entity determining the difference. This is a key reason why we are where we are on this topic.
For example, in Mexico, children born of native Mexicans, in Mexico, are nationals of Mexico, not citizens of Mexico. They do not become citizens until they are 18.
In Britain, due to its legacy of colonialism, there are six types of nationality: British citizens, subjects, overseas citizens, overseas territories citizens, overseas nationals, and protected persons.
In our own United States, Samoans of American Samoa are American nationals, not American citizens. They can obtain a US passport, live and work in the US, but they cannot vote in elections or hold public office. Nationals of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands were treated the same way until the US Congress gradually extended citizenship to its inhabitants.
“Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “Everyone has the right to a nationality” and “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality” but is silent on citizenship. Citizenship is a narrower concept: it is a specific legal relationship between a state and a person. It gives that person certain rights and responsibilities.”
Question: At what point did the citizens of the Kingdom of Hawaii become nationals and citizens of the United States – at the time of the overthrow and provisional government (1893), republic (1894), annexation (1898), or when it became the US Territory of Hawaii (TH) in 1900?
According to US Code, Title 8, section 1405:
“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.”
Given that annexation was conducted by unilateral US resolution and not by mutual treaty that annexation by US law requires, the question of legality of the US annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii remains controversial, as reflected in the 1993 “Apology Resolution”. If annexation was illegal according to US law, then US Code, Title 8, section 1405 does not stand, no?
Thus, the controversy remains and we remain where we are, in controversy. How to move forward?
One way is to fully embrace that Hawaii is what it is, that what differentiates Hawaii from other places, is that it emanates from a distinctive rich cultural heritage developed over many centuries before the 1778 Contact to the extent that this old/ancient Hawaii is one of seven recognized cradles of civilization.
Native Hawaiians who consider themselves directly tied to this pre-1778 cultural heritage may be acknowledged as the standard bearers. It is their cultural heritage to be recognized and respected not only by all those who today call Hawaii home but also by temporary residents and visitors.
Those whose ancestors were non-Native Hawaiians and citizens of the Kingdom of Hawaii when they were in minority offered recognition and respect. This continued until some exerted the dominance of a foreign power for personal-political reasons that were centered on economics, they were primarily business people. This is a key source of today’s grievances.
Admirable and fortunately for today’s Hawaii, there has been over the past few decades a relatively strong resurgence of Hawaii’s rich cultural heritage in educational institutions from pre-school through post-graduate levels, in research and literatire, in the exciting achievements of Hokulea, in Hawaiian language and the arts, including performing arts, in cultural values and personal treatment of each other, and in lifestyles.
Lack of recognition and respect of what essentially makes Hawaii Hawaii – its rich cultural heritage – is largely what energizes opposition to TMT and other such protests. There is no essential difference between the science of TMT or of the science of Native Hawaiians as demonstrated by their navigational feats, for example. In this particular case, the degree of non-recognition and lack of respect, admittedly perhaps unwitting, needs to be examined and resolved if the TMT project is to more forward, or not.
In any case, it is, indeed, not about race, especially today when so many who claim pre-1778 Hawaiian ancestry can also claim they are enriched by their ancestral ties to other cultures. Who among Pake-Hawaiians and Portagee-Hawaiians, etc etc etc, are not proud of all that they are?
By the way, let’s not confuse race with ethnicity. Race refers to physical characteristics – skin color, bone structure, hair texture, eye color, etc. Ethnicity refers to cultural factors, usually of our most recent ancestors who are native or who emigrated from their traditional homeland. The ultimate irony, according to DNA studies, is that our earliest human ancestors emigrated out of Africa some 200,000 years go, which means that before anyone acquired and ethnic identity, deep down we are all racially black.
Earlier Hawaii TH birth certificates under father and mother mixed race and ethnicity noting “color or race” as caucasian (race) or part-Hawaiian (ethnicity), Chinese (etnicity), Portuguese (ethnicity), negro (race). This terminology was applied to Hawaii State driving licenses as distinguishing factors along with eye color.
Sorry for this excessive length but thinking this through takes a lot of thought . . .
Respectfully, thank you for the healthy instigation.
Willy Kauai’s dissertation “The color of nationality: continuities and discontinuities of citizenship in Hawaiʻi” explains a lot of this too in detail; if only it were published as a book and more discussions could be prompted about inclusion of naturalized people of different ethnicities within the term Hawaiian (in reference to citizenship/nationality) and, without the naturalization by the Hawaiian State, inclusion of people of all ethnicities in Hawaiʻi in aloha ʻāina and Hawaiian nationalist causes/groups/movements. Sai in his articles on the Hawaiian Kingdom Blog (ex. https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/natives-of-the-hawaiian-islands-are-not-indigenous-theyre-aboriginal/ ) and his article “Setting the record straight on Hawaiian indigeneity” also get at this issue of Hawaiian indigeneity being a problem of language that obscures the situation of occupation into terms of colonialism and indigenous rights/movements that aren’t applicable to Hawaiʻi.
My sense of reason of Nationality of Polynesian Race is Kanaka maoli Hawaiian Descendant’s previous to ‘1778 is Classified Mixed Blood of Polynesian’s (Pilikoko: Blood Connection) within the Triangle Of Polynesia Aboriginal’s…Don’t Distort the Definition of Our Race & The Triangle Of Polynesia Is Of The”SACRED EIGHT” A Harmonious Unit That CANNOT BE BROKEN, IN UNITY AND BLESSEDNESS…WAIPA’A Steadfast IN Purpose And With The Purposed Of The CREATOR TEAVE Pono & Pa’a WAIPA Mahalo nui.