The number is lower than 70 when you consider that 50 of those were women who lived in Hawaii but gave birth in a different county from where they wee considered a resident.
I think the problem is DL thinks the term non-resident means not a resident of the US. But the Table in the Vital Statistic manuals says it means not a resident of the county where the birth was registered.
The number of births in Hawaii is not outrageously high for it’s population size. According to DL the number should be high because it would include both actual births in Hawaii plus foreign births registered as Hawaiian births.
Here’s population and number of births for several states.
For 1960
South Dakota - 683,000, 17,630
Montana - 679,000, 17,258
Idaho - 671,000, 17,022
Hawaii - 642,000, 17,202
North Dakota - 634,000, 16,594
For 1961
South Dakota - 693,000, 17,530
Montana - 696,000, 17,196
Idaho - 684,000, 16,736
Hawaii - 659,000, 17,578
North Dakota - 641,000, 16370
For 1962
South Dakota - 705,000, 17,092
Montana - 698,000, 16,610
Idaho - 692,000, 16,192
Hawaii - 684,000, 17,982
North Dakota - 637,000, 15,690
> I think the problem is DL thinks the term non-resident means
> not a resident of the US.
I think that’s his interpretation too, bolstered by that table’s caption’s use of the words “foreign” and “alien”. But that would mean (by that same table) that Idaho had more than 3,000 births to non-US residents in 1961. Does that seem likely?
And I still don’t understand what the table caption is getting at in its final sentence. “Hawaii’s birth rate to non-resident alien parents was surpassed only by Florida”—Hawaii’s birth rate to nonresident parents, by that table, was less than 1%. What are they talking about?
Allow me to gift you with a major clue. Discover what particular aspect of Polk’s methodology resulted in SAD being listed as a student in ‘62 in HI. No, it is not an error. It is not a SAD lie either. Polk crosschecked their info, so even if SAD lied to a canvasser the lie would not have made it into the publication. It is all crystal clear, per Polk’s standard procedures. And no, SAD appearing in that directory does not prove she was in HI during her pregnancy any more than it proves she was a student in HI in ‘61.
Not at all. The problem is that it appears as though Hawaii was claiming far more "resident" births than would be reasonable, and are likely disguising foreign births by claiming them as "resident."