[DiogenesLamp]

I don’t understand that table. It looks to me like Hawaii had by far the lowest number (and percentage) of births to nonresident mothers—which makes sense, given how far away it is. Yet the caption seems to be making a point that has nothing to do with the data in the table. Can you clarify?

I took it to mean that Hawaii has made such a point of registering so many non-residents as "resident" births that their stats got screwed up. That there are many "non-resident" births getting reported as "resident" births, which is exactly the situation for which Obama is suspected. In other words, the stat bolsters the assertion of hanky panky going on in the records section of Hawaii state government.

[4Zoltan]

Actually it does no such thing.

Since the data is only for births in the US, no foreign births are reported, all of the states have exactly the same percentage of foreign births registered as US - 0%.

Alaska could not have registered foreign births of 7.57% since they report no foreign births at all.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

What makes you think those stats are screwed up? Is it just that only 70 Hawaiian births in 1961 were to nonresidents seems suspiciously low? Well, it was 88 in 1960 (0.51%) and only 384 in 2002 (2%), despite the vast increase in transportation options since then. Either this process of reporting nonresident births as resident births has continued into the 2000s, or just not that many late-stage pregnant women get on a plane or boat for Hawaii.