Its up to you to disprove the theory. But being a decent researcher this will get you started regarding the foreign born population of Hawaii and how it has increased. This has ALWAYS been an issue in Hawaii.
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/facts/state_data_HI
The 2000 Census recorded 212,229 foreign-born residents in the state. That was 17.5 percent of the state's overall population and an increase of 30.4 percent above the 1990 foreign-born population of 162,704 residents. That rate of increase in the immigrant population was much higher than the 5.7 percent increase in the state's native-born population, but it was lower than the national average increase in the foreign-born population of 57.4 percent.
A comparison of the increase in the immigrant population from 1990 with the change in the overall population during the same period shows that immigrant settlement directly accounted for 47.9 percent of the state's overall population increase over that decade. The share of the population increase due to immigration would be still higher if the children of the immigrants born here after their arrival were included with their immigrant parents in the calculation.
The 2000 Census found that 34.1 percent of Hawaii's foreign-born population had arrived in the state since 1990. This demonstrates the effects of the current mass immigration, although it was a lower share than the national average (43.7%).
+++++++++++++++++++++++ It wasn't just Vietnamese. They came from all over the pacific. That graph represents 60 to 70 THOUSAND immigrants around the time of 1960, and it has only ever gone up. Hawaii is TINY and had a tiny economy compared to any other state in the United States. The financial pressure of taking care of the sheer numbers...... Anyone who has lived in Hawaii knows about this.
Hawaii just made it overly easy to get babies registered as having been born in the state and therefor eligible for state assistance, and through the state Federal assistance.
You prove ME wrong Loren.
So, to recap the questions I posed:
"That Hawaii was the recipient of an exceedingly large number of Vietnamese immigrants?"
You've provided some limited figures about Hawaii's immigrant population in 1960. But nothing specific to Vietnam (which you cited as the source of the influx) and nothing to indicate that Hawaii's immigrant influx was particularly large compared to other immigrant-friendly states at the time, such as California or New York (as indicated by the data at the FAIR website). And I can't say I've ever heard of any supposed widespread birth certificate fraud committed by those states in the 1960s.
"That Hawaii's resources were taxed by the influx of immigration during the period?"
You've provided nothing to support this assertion of yours.
"That Hawaii was granting Certificates of Live Birth to "thousands" of babies based on nothing more than a witness signature?"
You've provided absolutely nothing to support this assertion of yours, and seem to be actively avoiding the subject.
"That Hawaii was giving out fraudulent birth certificates to lots and lots of foreign-born babies?"
And you've provided absolutely nothing to support this assertion of yours, and again seem to be actively avoiding responding to it.
On the other hand, you've inexplicably provided a lot of data about immigration to Hawaii during the 1990s, and the impact of recent immigration on Hawaii. In other words, data that is irrelevant by being 40-50 years too late.
Its up to you to disprove the theory.
Hogwash. You made up 'facts,' you got caught making up facts, and so you just want to shift the burden. Even if it *was* up to me, how would I possibly show that Hawaii *didn't* do something? That's proving a negative. If Hawaii actually *did* do that, you'd have a source for it. If thousands of foreign-born kids *did* get bogus Hawaiian birth certificates, you'd just point to the legitimate source where you learned that factoid.
But you don't, because you're just trading in made-up 'facts.' You make up stuff that sounds vaguely plausible, present it as factual, and then hope nobody questions it. And like usmcobra, when you get caught doing it, you just pass the buck and pretend like you have no responsibility to defend your own claims. Because if you don't make excuses, you'll have to admit that you have no real sources for half the stuff you're claiming.