[jcsjcm]

In the state of HI a "Certificate of Live Birth" and a "Birth Certificate" are the exact same things.

Problem with this statement from the Hawaiian records is they changed the wording a couple of months ago when Freepers pulled up the law. It had stated that a Certification was not enough information to use as a legal document, but again I stress this was changed. Ask anyone that watched this play out.

[Red Steel]

Problem with this statement from the Hawaiian records is they changed the wording a couple of months ago when Freepers pulled up the law. It had stated that a Certification was not enough information to use as a legal document, but again I stress this was changed. Ask anyone that watched this play out.

Yes, and also I'm looking for the threads that the DOH are in the process of re-writing their regulations that cover birth certificates.

[OldDeckHand]

"It had stated that a Certification was not enough information to use as a legal document,"

First, both the "Certificate of Live Birth" and the "Certification of Live Birth" are "legal" documents. Second, The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands has required for years that applicants provide their a certified copy of their original long-form birth certificate - aka a "Certificate of Live Birth".

Why, you ask? Because this particular state agency is charged with protecting the privileges and rights that are uniquely available to indigenous Hawaiian people, and those rights couldn't be verified unless the applicant could prove the indigenous bona fides of the BIRTH parents, which is information that would not be available on the "Certification of Live Birth".

What they call for with respect to documentation, or the language they use now, or have been using for years to describe that documentation, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the musings of posters on political chat boards, including Free Republic.