If America is so good how come no other part of the world joined America like Crimea joined Russia?

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Please explain what you mean by this:
"that law will not recognize the right of Native Hawaiian to Independence and getting separated from USA if natives of Hawaii accept it , it will be like renouncing their right to independence and accepting the annexing of Hawaii"
If they were a majority wanting Independence then sure, why not? - unless I am missing something here. When the referendum was held in 1959 ( not that long ago) 93% voted to join the US as a state. Nobody put a gun to their head. They are free to hold another referendum if they choose

Similar situation as Crimea. Crimea overwhelmingly voted to leave Ukraine and then joined Russia.

 

[TexasJohn]

Agreed there about Crimea.I have yet to run into any Hawaiian that gung-ho wants to leave the US. Heck even Obama claims native US status and he was born in 1961 - a mere two years after Hawaii became a state..or so he says

 

[Hack-Hook]

There is a series of steps that must take place before a territory becomes a State in the Union:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_Union
Interestingly enough Texas joined the Union of it's own accord from being the Republic of Texas, so technically can secede if they want to..heh

didn't at the time of Obama , they white house put up a petition site, and Texas in 2012 managed to gather enough vote for White-house consider the petition (more than 125000 vote) and the petition was about separating from the United state. and the white house response was

The director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, Jon Carson, wrote in his response that free and open debate was good for democracy, but also cited some of the legal arguments against secession, including Texas v. White, an 1869 Supreme Court ruling that found that individual states did not have a right to secede.

“Our founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States ‘in order to form a more perfect union’ through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government,” Mr. Carson wrote. “They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot — a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it.”

 

[Hack-Hook]

Please explain what you mean by this:
"that law will not recognize the right of Native Hawaiian to Independence and getting separated from USA if natives of Hawaii accept it , it will be like renouncing their right to independence and accepting the annexing of Hawaii"
If they were a majority wanting Independence then sure, why not? - unless I am missing something here. When the referendum was held in 1959 ( not that long ago) 93% voted to join the US as a state. Nobody put a gun to their head. They are free to hold another referendum if they choose

in 1896 there was 40000 native Hawaii people . in 1959 there was 600000 people in the islands , won't you think the population increased a little too much to be a natural phenomenon .

the ones who voted for statehood were not native Hawaiian ,they were American and east Asian who migrated to the islands in those 60 year between the annexation and the vote , you see there was only 35% of eligible voters gave their vote in that referendum

 

[Hack-Hook]

its intresting reading about Hawaii for the one who like to knew how Hawaii ,illegally annexed and how illegally it become a state.
even the plebiscite that made Hawaii a state was in violation of UN charter.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/HAWAII/hawaii.php

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

even the plebiscite that made Hawaii a state was in violation of UN charter.

Hawaii was not a UN member state and it was already an American territory like Puerto Rico and Guam and American Virgin islands are.

 

[Hack-Hook]

also these charts show the reality of that vote
population eligible to vote

percentage of yes and no and abstain

percentage of eligible voter who voted yes

now the last part that show the reality of Hawaii population in 1960

yes in 1960 just 1 year after the vote only 23% of there people who lived in Hawaii were actually borne there 75% were immigrant and 2% didn't answered the question

 

[Hack-Hook]

Hawaii was not a UN member state and it was already an American territory like Puerto Rico and Guam and American Virgin islands are.

following WW2 in UN it was categorized as non self-governing territories and USA was trustee

Under the UN charter, the status of a territory can only be changed by a special vote, called a plebiscite, held among the inhabitants of the territory. That plebiscite is required to have three choices on the ballot. The first choice is to become a part of the trustee nation. In Hawaii's case that meant to become a state. The second choice was to remain a territory. And the third choice, required by the UN Charter, was the option for independence. For Hawaii, that meant no longer being a territory of the United States and returning to being an independent sovereign nation. In 1959 Hawaii's plebiscite vote was held, and again, the United States government bent the rules. The plebiscite ballot only had the choice between statehood and remaining a territory. No option for independence appeared on the ballot as was required under the UN charter.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

following WW2 in UN it was categorized as non self-governing territories and USA was trustee

under Article 73. Under the UN charter, the status of a territory can only be changed by a special vote, called a plebiscite, held among the inhabitants of the territory. That plebiscite is required to have three choices on the ballot. The first choice is to become a part of the trustee nation. In Hawaii's case that meant to become a state. The second choice was to remain a territory. And the third choice, required by the UN Charter, was the option for independence. For Hawaii, that meant no longer being a territory of the United States and returning to being an independent sovereign nation. In 1959 Hawaii's plebiscite vote was held, and again, the United States government bent the rules. The plebiscite ballot only had the choice between statehood and remaining a territory. No option for independence appeared on the ballot as was required under the UN charter.

Hawaii was already US territory in 1959 so it did not violate UN charter.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Hawaii was already US territory in 1959 so it did not violate UN charter.

no it was not USA Territory as I said according to UN it was non self-governing territories and USA was trustee.
you must go and look at UN resolution 742 (look at the bold part)

742 (VIII). Factors which should be taken into account in deciding whether a Territory is or is not a Territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government. The General Assembly, Bearing in mind the principles embodied in the Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories and the objectives set forth in ChapterXI of the Charter, Recalling the provisions of resolutions 567 (VI) and 648 (VII),adopted by the General Assembly on 18 January and 10 December 1952respectively, indicating the value of establishing a list of factors which should be taken into account in deciding whether a Territory has or has not attained a full measure of self-government,Having regard to the competence of the General Assembly to consider the principles that should guide the United Nations and the Member States in the implementation of obligations arising from Chapter XI of the Charter and to make recommendations in connexion with them,Having examined the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Factors(Non-Self-Governing Territories) set up by resolution 648 (VII),1. Takes note of the conclusions of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Factors (Non-Self-Governing Territories);2. Approves the list of factors as adopted by the Fourth Committee;3. Recommends that the annexed list of factors should be used by the General Assembly and the Administering Members as a guide indetermining whether any Territory, due to changes in its constitutional status, is or is no longer within the scope of Chapter XI of the Charter, in order that, in view of the documentation provided under resolution 222 (III) of 3 November 1948, a decision may be taken by the General Assembly on the continuation or cessation of the transmission of information required by Chapter XI of the Charter;4. Reasserts that each concrete case should be considered and decided upon in the light of the particular circumstances of that case and taking into account the right of self-determination of peoples;5. Considers that the validity of any form of association between a Non-Self-Governing Territory and a metropolitan or any other country essentially depends on the freely expressed will of the people at the time of the taking of the decision;6. Considers that the manner in which Territories referred to in Chapter XI of the Charter can become fully self-governing is primarily through the attainment of independence, although it is recognized that self-government can also be achieved by association with another state or group of states if this is done freely and on the basis of absolute equality;7. Reaffirms that the factors, while serving as a guide in determining whether the obligation as set forth in Chapter XI of the Charter shall exist, would in no way be interpreted as a hindrance to the attainment of a full measure of self-government by the Non-Self-Governing Territory;8. Further reaffirms that, for a Territory to be deemed self-governing in economic, social or educational affairs, it is essential that its people shall have attained a full measure of self-government;9. Instructs the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories to study any documentation transmitted hereafter under resolution 222 (III) in the light of the list of factors approved by the present resolution, and other relevant consideration which may arise from each concrete case of cessation of information;10. Recommends that the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories take the initiative of proposing modifications at any time to improve the list of factors, as may seem necessary in the light of circumstances.459th plenary meeting27 November 1953ANNEXList of Factors FACTORS INDICATIVE OF THE ATTAINMENT OF INDEPENDENCE OR OF OTHER SEPARATE SYSTEMS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT First Part FACTORS INDICATIVE OF THE ATTAINMENT OF INDEPENDENCE A. International Status 1. International responsibility. Full international responsibility of the Territory for the acts inherent in the exercise of its external sovereignty and for the corresponding acts in the administration of its internal affairs. 2. Eligibility for membership in the United Nations 3. General International Relations. Power to enter into direct relations of every kind with other governments and with international institutions and to negotiate, sign and ratify international instruments. 4. National defence. Sovereign right to provide for its national defence.B. Internal Self-Government 1. Form of government. Complete freedom of the people of the Territory to choose the form of government which they desire. 2. Territorial government. Freedom from control of interference by the government of another State in respect of the internal government(legislature, executive, judiciary, and administration of the Territory). 3. Economic, social and cultural jurisdiction. Complete autonomy in respect of economic, social and cultural affairs.Second Part FACTORS INDICATING THE ATTAINMENT OF OTHER SEPARATE SYSTEMS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT A. General 1. Opinion of the population. The opinion of the population of the Territory, freely expressed by informed and democratic processes, as to the status or change in status which they desire. 2. Freedom of choice. Freedom of choosing on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples between several possibilities,including independence. 3. Voluntary limitation of sovereignty. Degree of evidence that the attribute or attributes of sovereignty which are not individually exercised will be collectively exercised by the larger entity thus associated and the freedom of the population of a Territory which as association itself with the metropolitan country to modify at any time this status through the expression of their will by democratic means. 4. Geographical considerations. Extent to which the relations of the Non-Self-Governing Territory with the capital of the metropolitan government may be affected by circumstances arising out of their respective geographical positions, such as separation by land, sea or other natural obstacles; and extent to which the interests of boundary States may be affected, bearing in mind the general principles of good-neighborliness referred to in Article 74 of the Charter. 5. Ethnic and cultural considerations. Extent to which the populations are of different race, language or religion or have a distinct cultural heritage, interests or aspirations, distinguishingthem from the country with which they freely associate themselves. 6. Political advancement. Political advancement of the populationsufficient to enable them to decide upon the future destiny of theTerritory with knowledge.B. Internal status 1. General international relations. Degree or extent to which theterritory exercises the power to enter freely into direct relations ofevery kind with other governments and with international institutionsand to negotiate, sign and ratify international instruments freely.Degree or extent to which the metropolitan country is bound, throughconstitutional provisions or legislative means, by the freely expressedwishes of the Territory in negotiating, signing and ratifyinginternational conventions which may influence conditions in theTerritory. 2. Change of political status. The right of the metropolitan countryor the Territory to change the political status of that Territory inthe light of the consideration whether that Territory is or is notsubject to any claim or litigation on the part of another State. 3. Eligibility for membership in the United Nations.C. Internal self-government 1. Territorial government. Nature and measure of control orinterference, if any, by the government of another State in respect ofthe internal government, for example, in respect of the following: Legislature: The enactments of laws for the Territory by anindigenous body whether fully elected by free and democratic processesor lawfully constituted in a manner receiving the free consent of thepopulation; Executive: The selection of members of the executive branch of thegovernment by the competent authority in the Territory receivingconsent of the indigenous population, whether that authority ishereditary or elected, having regard also to the nature and measure ofcontrol, if any, by an outside agency on that authority, whetherdirectly of indirectly exercised in the constitution and conduct of theexecutive branch of the government. Judiciary: The establishments of courts of law and the selection ofjudges. 2. Participation of the population. Effective participation of thepopulation in the government of the Territory; (a) is there an adequateand appropriate electoral and representative system? (b) Is thiselectoral system conducted without direct or indirect interference froma foreign government? 3. Economic, social and cultural jurisdiction. Degree of autonomy inrespect of economic, social and cultural affairs, as illustrated by thedegree of freedom from economic pressure as exercised, for example, by aforeign minority group which, by virtue of the help of a foreign Power,has acquired a privileged economic status prejudicial to the generaleconomic interest of the people of the Territory; and by the degree offreedom and lack of discrimination against the indigenous population ofthe Territory in social legislation and social developments.Third partFACTORS INDICATIVE OF THE FREE ASSOCIATION OF A TERRITORY ON EQUALBASIS WITH THE METROPOLITAN OR OTHER COUNTRY AS AN INTEGRAL PART OFTHAT COUNTRY OR IN ANY OTHER FORMA. General 1. Opinion of the population. The opinion of the population of theTerritory, freely expressed by informed and democratic processes, as tothe status or change in status which they desire. 2. Freedom of choice. The freedom of the population of aNon-Self-Governing Territory which has associated itself with themetropolitan country as an integral part of that country or in anyother form to modify this status through the expression of their willbe democratic means. 3. Geographical considerations. Extent to which the relations of theTerritory with the capital of the central government may be affected bycircumstances arising out of their respective geographical positions,such as separation by land, sea or other natural obstacles. The rightof the metropolitan country or the Territory to change the politicalstatus of that Territory in the light of the consideration whether thatTerritory is or is not subject to any claim or litigation on the part ofanother State. 4. Ethnic and cultural considerations. Extent to which thepopulations are of different race, language or religion or have adistinct cultural heritage, interests or aspirations, distinguishingthem from the peoples of the country with which they freely associatethemselves. 5. Political advancement. Political advancement of the populationsufficient to enable them to decide upon the future destiny of theTerritory with due knowledge. 6. Constitutional considerations. Association by virtue of a treatyor bilateral agreement affecting the status of the Territory, takinginto account (i) whether the constitutional guarantees extend equallyto the associated Territory, (ii) whether there are powers in certainmatters constitutionally reserved to the Territory or in the centralauthority, and (iii) whether there is provision for the participationof the Territory on a basis of equality in any changes in theconstitutional system of the State.B. Status 1. Legislative representation. Representation without discriminationin the central legislative organs on the same basis as otherinhabitants and regions. 2. Participation of the population. Effective participation of thepopulation in the government of the Territory: (a) Is there an adequateand appropriate electoral and representative system? (b) Is thiselectoral system conducted without direct or indirect interference froma foreign government? 3. Citizenship. Citizenship without discrimination on the same basisas other inhabitants. 4. Government officials. Eligibility of officials from the Territoryto all public offices of the central authority, by appointment orelection, on the same basis as those from other parts of the country.C. Internal constitutional conditions 1. Suffrage. Universal and equal suffrage, and free periodicelections, characterized by an absence of undue influence over andcoercion of the voter or of the imposition of disabilities onparticular political parties. 2. Local rights and status. In a unitary system equal rights andstatus for the inhabitants and local bodies of the Territory as enjoyedby inhabitants and local bodies of other parts of the country; in afederal system an identical degree of self-government for theinhabitants and local bodies of all parts of the federation. 3. Local officials. Appointment or election of officials in theTerritory on the same basis as those in other parts of the country. 4. Integral legislation. Local self-government of the same scope andunder the same conditions as enjoyed by other parts of the country. 5. Economic, social and cultural jurisdiction. Degree of autonomy inrespect of economic, social and cultural affairs, as illustrated by thedegree of freedom from economic pressure as exercised, for example, by aforeign minority group which, by virtue of the help of a foreign Power,has acquired a privileged economic status prejudicial to the generaleconomic interest of the people of the Territory; and by the degree offreedom and lack of discrimination against the indigenous population ofthe Territory in social legislation and social developments.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

no it was not USA Territory as I said according to UN it was non self-governing territories and USA was trustee.
you must go and look at UN resolution 742 (look at the bold part)

It was a territory of America before it became a state of America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii

 

[TexasJohn]

in 1896 there was 40000 native Hawaii people . in 1959 there was 600000 people in the islands , won't you think the population increased a little too much to be a natural phenomenon .

the ones who voted for statehood were not native Hawaiian ,they were American and east Asian who migrated to the islands in those 60 year between the annexation and the vote , you see there was only 35% of eligible voters gave their vote in that referendum

Yes demographics change, and people are mobile and move around. In 100 years the population mix also changes. I can point to several countries. Look at UK now. Larger mix of "foreigners" than pure white Englishmen? Even the US has changed. In the past 61 years of my existence, I have seen a huge influx of Latinos, Asians, etc. etc. Yes they are Americans and must be accepted as such. So the typical American as you might call him / her is changing. As for the "native hawaiian" as you call them, even they differentiate among themselves - the "mainlanders vs the islanders" even though they are all from islands. So your argument holds no substance

 

[Mugwop]

Hawaii—a U.S. territory since 1898—became the 50thstate in August, 1959, following a referendum inHawaii in which more than 93% of the voters approved the proposition that the territory should be admitted as a state. There were many Hawaiian petitions for statehood during the first half of the 20th century.

Hmm ok

 

[Mugwop]

Hawaii was already America territory before Hawaii became a state. America wanted 50 states which is nice even round number. That's why they made Hawaii 50th and final state.

Hawaii is a beautiful place too bad it's expensive and ran by yakuza.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Yes demographics change, and people are mobile and move around. In 100 years the population mix also changes. I can point to several countries. Look at UK now. Larger mix of "foreigners" than pure white Englishmen? Even the US has changed. In the past 61 years of my existence, I have seen a huge influx of Latinos, Asians, etc. etc. Yes they are Americans and must be accepted as such. So the typical American as you might call him / her is changing. As for the "native hawaiian" as you call them, even they differentiate among themselves - the "mainlanders vs the islanders" even though they are all from islands. So your argument holds no substance

as I said that , plebiscite was against UN charter and resolution 742 as it didn't offer the Independence right for the people .

and the sort of demographic change that happened in Hawaii , if happens in other places usually is called ethnic cleansing . great formula ,invade a country , actively change demographic of the land , held a mock and fake plebiscite and then add the land legally to your country.
and still won't change the fact that USA marines participate with a coupe de etate committed by USA origin merchants and citizens there . and 3 time USA congress or Senate whatever said no to annexing Hawaii but at lase illegally even against USA law (admitted by Clinton in 1993 or 1992) it became a USA territory .

the US Congress passed a joint resolution, referred to as the Newlands Resolution, by a simple majority of both houses. The United States asserted that it had legally annexed Hawaii. Critics argued this was not a legally permissible way to acquire territory under the U.S. Constitution. As well as this, there were continued protests in Hawaii and Washington by supporters of the Kingdom. The flag of the United States was raised over Hawaii on August 12, 1898, protected by the United States Navy.

It won't change the fact that Native people of Hawaii never asked if they want to be Part of USA and they become part of it because USA saw the benefit of an Unsinkable battleship in middle of Pacific ocean