There is a state hard cap and the state's general grudge is more against the federal government for not reimbursing the cost to the state along the lines "We can't stop them and because of culture, geography, and climate they all come to Hawaii to the point they eat up the majority of our state welfare funds. COFA immigrants don't fly ov…
There is a state hard cap and the state's general grudge is more against the federal government for not reimbursing the cost to the state along the lines "We can't stop them and because of culture, geography, and climate they all come to Hawaii to the point they eat up the majority of our state welfare funds. COFA immigrants don't fly over Hawaii on there way to Montana or California, 99.9% land here". To immigrate with affectively a permanent residence visa, COFA members have a uniquely low bar of basically "has a plane ticket and is breathing".
Locals more complain about the standard culture integration, crime, etc problems locals complain about immigrants everywhere in the world with the exception of stealing jobs because the generally true perception is hell will freeze over before COFA members work, they don't have a culture of it even back home hence the welfare problem. But the state can't be so politically incorrect so most just want the Feds to reimburse the state for what they feel is a problem unfairly and uniquely hoisted on Hawaii by the Feds at Hawaiians cost.
The immigration part isn't going anywhere, that was just extended to 2045.
I wouldn't count on it, but maybe between now and 2045 there'll be a sea change in mainstream US culture that'll leave woke-progressivism and any associated sense of guilty obligation to third-world people of color in the wastebasket of history. Possibly as a side effect of a catastrophic collapse of the US economy brought about by further prolongation of the Federal government's unbridled profligacy.
The interesting part of COFA is how far under the radar it is, it's something you never hear anyone talk about, even the most die hard anti immigrant Republican or bleeding heart open borders Democrat. It's like both parties effectively agreed to always support it and not mention it for decades, even as they vote to renew it.
I've always abscribed that to "Hawaii only, out of sight, out of mind" coupled with "Not Mexican, Arab, or Black" as Micronesians are both extremely Christian and not white so win win all around from a bipartisan perspective.
But they have enough melanin to qualify as People of Color, don't they? That's huge.
Another, and even bigger, problem that no prominent US politician has ever acknowledged, AFAIK, is dysgenic fertility. Today it occurred to me that the problem could be redressed by political means without curtailing anyone's reproductive freedom, but I don't think there's much chance of it being done.
How specifically? By making LARC usage a precondition for welfare access? One would be able to go off of the LARC if one goes off of welfare, or refuse to accept welfare in the first place.
(Sterilized people would not need to use LARC in order to get welfare. And LARC stands for long-acting reversible contraception.)
What I had in mind was also an economic incentive, but for the other side of the problem: sub-replacement procreation by the highly intelligent. Offer a substantial cash grant to anyone submitting proof that he/she is the genetic progenitor of at least two healthy children and has achieved a score above some specified level on a standardized, uniformly administered, and highly g-loaded test. [revised on 12/23/25]
How about also aggressively subsidizing IVF, donor gametes, surrogacy, and maybe embryo selection and (in the future) IVG for everyone who needs it, including gay and single men, especially smart ones, and especially those with low income?
Any of those means would suffice for the purpose of the procreation criterion I had in mind, but I'd limit eligibility to those with proven high intelligence. I didn't say, or mean to imply, that the offspring should be "legitimate" -- i.e. produced by married couples.
There is a state hard cap and the state's general grudge is more against the federal government for not reimbursing the cost to the state along the lines "We can't stop them and because of culture, geography, and climate they all come to Hawaii to the point they eat up the majority of our state welfare funds. COFA immigrants don't fly over Hawaii on there way to Montana or California, 99.9% land here". To immigrate with affectively a permanent residence visa, COFA members have a uniquely low bar of basically "has a plane ticket and is breathing".
Locals more complain about the standard culture integration, crime, etc problems locals complain about immigrants everywhere in the world with the exception of stealing jobs because the generally true perception is hell will freeze over before COFA members work, they don't have a culture of it even back home hence the welfare problem. But the state can't be so politically incorrect so most just want the Feds to reimburse the state for what they feel is a problem unfairly and uniquely hoisted on Hawaii by the Feds at Hawaiians cost.
The immigration part isn't going anywhere, that was just extended to 2045.
https://www.doi.gov/oia/COFAinUS
And just like for the last half century it will get extended again come 2045 as it is every time it's been up for renewal.
I wouldn't count on it, but maybe between now and 2045 there'll be a sea change in mainstream US culture that'll leave woke-progressivism and any associated sense of guilty obligation to third-world people of color in the wastebasket of history. Possibly as a side effect of a catastrophic collapse of the US economy brought about by further prolongation of the Federal government's unbridled profligacy.
The interesting part of COFA is how far under the radar it is, it's something you never hear anyone talk about, even the most die hard anti immigrant Republican or bleeding heart open borders Democrat. It's like both parties effectively agreed to always support it and not mention it for decades, even as they vote to renew it.
I've always abscribed that to "Hawaii only, out of sight, out of mind" coupled with "Not Mexican, Arab, or Black" as Micronesians are both extremely Christian and not white so win win all around from a bipartisan perspective.
But they have enough melanin to qualify as People of Color, don't they? That's huge.
Another, and even bigger, problem that no prominent US politician has ever acknowledged, AFAIK, is dysgenic fertility. Today it occurred to me that the problem could be redressed by political means without curtailing anyone's reproductive freedom, but I don't think there's much chance of it being done.
As for dysgenics, Charles Murray tried to talk about it in the Bell Curve but the mainstream shunned and rejected him.
The book's other co-author, Richard Herrnstein, evaded obloquy by dying prior to its publication. https://psychology.fas.harvard.edu/people/richard-j-herrnstein
Yep, I knew that.
How specifically? By making LARC usage a precondition for welfare access? One would be able to go off of the LARC if one goes off of welfare, or refuse to accept welfare in the first place.
(Sterilized people would not need to use LARC in order to get welfare. And LARC stands for long-acting reversible contraception.)
What I had in mind was also an economic incentive, but for the other side of the problem: sub-replacement procreation by the highly intelligent. Offer a substantial cash grant to anyone submitting proof that he/she is the genetic progenitor of at least two healthy children and has achieved a score above some specified level on a standardized, uniformly administered, and highly g-loaded test. [revised on 12/23/25]
How about also aggressively subsidizing IVF, donor gametes, surrogacy, and maybe embryo selection and (in the future) IVG for everyone who needs it, including gay and single men, especially smart ones, and especially those with low income?
Any of those means would suffice for the purpose of the procreation criterion I had in mind, but I'd limit eligibility to those with proven high intelligence. I didn't say, or mean to imply, that the offspring should be "legitimate" -- i.e. produced by married couples.
Just how high of an intelligence? Triple-digits? So, 100+?
I'd draw the line well to the right of the bell-curve median.
But wouldn’t any improvement in the bell curve still be an achievement?