Featuring Bill Richardson, co-chair of the ACAlliance; formerly Governor of New Mexico, Secretary of Energy, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Jim Gilmore, 2016 Republican Presidential Candidate, and former Governor of Virginia; Ruben Navarrette, Jr., syndicated columnist and a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors; Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform; Matthew Kolken, Managing Partner of the immigration law firm of Kolken & Kolken, and the author of the Deportation and Removal Blog; Richard Boswell, Associate Dean for Global Programs, University of California Hastings College of Law; Erika Lee, Director of the Immigration History Research Center, and the Rudolph J. Vecoli Chair in Immigration History at the University of Minnesota; Mark Hugo Lopez, Director of Hispanic Research, Pew Research Center; Philip E. Wolgin, Associate Director, Immigration, Center for American Progress; and Alex Nowrasteh, Immigration Policy Analyst, Cato Institute Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
American leaders have cooperated with regimes around the world that are, to varying degrees, repressive or corrupt. Such cooperation is said to serve the national interest. But these partnerships also contravene the nation’s commitments to democratic governance, civil liberties, and free markets. In Perilous Partners, authors Ted Galen Carpenter and Malou Innocent provide a strategy for resolving the ethical dilemmas between interests and values faced by Washington.
The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.
The One-Drop Rule in Hawaii? The Akaka Bill and the Future of Race-Based Government
Featuring Jere Krischel, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Elaine Willman, Citizens Equal Rights Alliance, Andresen Blom, Research Institute for Hawaii, and Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute.
The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act—known as the “Akaka Bill”-would grant “native Hawaiians” federal recognition akin to that now enjoyed by Indian tribes. The bill creates a special authority that would exempt sufficiently ethnic Hawaiians from certain aspects of federal and state power. Having already passed the House and been reported out of Senate committee, the Akaka Bill is now due to be taken up by the full Senate. President Bush has promised a veto—citing the U.S. Civil Rights Commission’s conclusion that it “would discriminate on the basis of race … and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege.”
Are these sorts of measures simply a matter of long-delayed justice? Does the Akaka Bill satisfy constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process? What kind of precedent would it establish for other ethnic groups? And what would be the economic effects on businesses and tourism in Hawaii? Please join us for a discussion of these and other political, economic, legal, and historical issues.