The United States should vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii

Pro: You clearly don't understand how Monarchy works. I know how it works very well. There is a hereditary monarch who shares power with an elected legislature. The monarch with all her power is not elected by the people and so represents herself not the people. People deserve the right to choose who to lead them. Pro: Again, your opinions are irrelevant to this debate. They are very relevant. I am con. Pro: The Queen tried to give the Hawaiian subjects the right to vote, but failed when it came to the legislature, so she give her "authoritative decree, sanction, and order: a royal fiat."[1] I do not see any problem here, the legislature clearly didn't want the Hawaiian subjects to be given the right to vote... The Queen did the right thing. Though I don't see how this is relevant to the legal status of the "State of Hawaii". Expanded voting rights was not the only thing she wanted and was not her main objective. Her main objective and the main topic of her new constitution was expanded power for the monarch (herself). Her power at the time was reduced to almost that of a figurehead so trying to replace the constitution without the consent of the legislature is clearly illegal. Replacing the constitution without any constitutional authority gives the constitution no meaning if it can be so blatantly violated. She was clearly a dangerous threat to the republican government. Pro: Again, I have already provided you with the fact that the Hawaiians do want independence. The country is property to the the Hawaiians, not to the United States. I will go over my arguments as to why most Hawaiians don't want independence again later in this debate. Pro: Are you just going to ignore the fact that the Hawaiians have demanded the United States to give back their kingdom and sovereignty when the United States recently asked them for their vote on this issue? I have provided you proof with this.... Just because a small group of people want independence does not mean a majority does. I would like evidence that a majority does. Pro: The United States overthrow the Queen Liliuokalani The overthrow was with our help but they did have 1,000 riflemen of their own. The group that led the overthrow was part of the business class of Hawaii not the US. We later condemned their action. Pro: If something is against international law, like invading a country and its sovereignty, does not mean it's wrong?! Your laughable statement is irrelevant to this debate. We did not invade Hawaii. There was an internal revolution with a small amount of American support. The American representative responsible was later fired and the action condemned by the US government. Hawaii was still independent as the Republic of Hawaii after the Queen was overthrown. Pro: This is not up for public polling, this is between the United States and the Hawaiians, and all the Hawaiians spoke. I have already proved this.... Yet you seem to disregard this. If a majority of Hawaiians, or in your opinions all Hawaiians want independence, their newspapers and civic organizations would have conducted many polls asking them about this. But since this is a minority movement I cannot even find polling data about this. If such data exists, it is the responsibility of my opponent to present it. Where are the major organizations in Hawaii demanding independence? Sure there are a few meetings and marches by a few natives but where is the national furor and coverage that would exist? I tried to do a google trend of Hawaii independence and I did get some volume but only a little bit and only really after 2008. There was not enough volume to get detailed information about related searches (1) . Puerto Rico has some support for independence and there is plenty of local media attention on the topic and even US attention. For example, according to a suffox opinion poll in a choice between independence and statehood, 70% chose statehood and only 14% chose independence (2). If even that support existed in Hawaii we should expect more polls and coverage. Since Hawaii is better known than Puero Rico because it is a state, and if it actually had a solid majority supporting independence we should expect to see far more polling and coverage about Hawaiian independence than Puero Rican independence. Instead we see the opposite. You clearly didn't read the news articles. "Native Hawaiians to Federal Government: Give Us Back Our Kingdom", this seems clear to me. In fact, the statement itself is evidence. Feel free to read up on this. A title is not proof of anything. A statistically significant polling result is. Yes you did make false claims: Here are the following claims that I have successfully disputed: "At the time, the annexation of Hawaii was not in the people's favor but it was not in their disfavor either.", "With the strong history of American culture on the island today, it is unlikely that calls for complete independence will be taken seriously by the vast majority of its inhabitants.", "If my opponent wants change for Hawaii in the form of independence, I would like evidence people there even want it." The queen ruled without a vote from most of the people, and neither did the later government. I do not see how the people were harmed. Hawaii grew to be the most prosperous nation in the Pacific. This movement has very little support. See my previous arguments: Lack of media coverage, Media coverage of Puero Rican independence but not Hawaii, patriotism during the 4th of July, no local polling data, and 3rd highest military recruitment rate. Plus no evidence is given that a majority favor independence. The simple fact is, the United States invaded a country, made Americans vote on it becoming a state, and denied the Hawaiians to have any say. 21,269 Native Hawaiians petitioned annexation. We did not invade Hawaii as stated before. Hawaiians who were American citizens had a say in the election. The statehood vote, both in terms of the question asked and the people who were allowed to vote, was in no way a valid act of self-determination, and did not legitimize the occupation. It was not a good vote of self-determination I agree but even so you would expect more than 2% of eligible voters to vote against statehood if 40% of the Island consisted of eligible voters and support for independence was so overwhelming. That was the point I was trying to make. Conclusion and points missed. My opponent failed to address many of my arguments including the suspicious lack of polling data, and did not address the high recruitment rate, large 4th of July celebrations, only 10-20% natives, statehood being beneficial to Hawaii, and putting independence on the ballot instead of just leaving. If my opponent's arguments that the majority want statehood is convincing for some reason, then why not just put statehood on the ballot instead of just leaving. Just leaving violated the will of the Hawaiian people. Let them choose. 1: http://www.google.com... 2: http://www.latinorebels.com...