 Melting pot depends on immigration policy. But do we know what that is? I think we may have forgotten what immigration policy is here on history is here to help. So we're going to study immigration policy today with Charlene Nakamoto-Lovine out of UH and Peter Hoffenberg, our co-host who's a history guy out of UH. And Peter's first obligation in this program is to properly introduce Charlene and the topic of discussion. All right, I'll take that obligation with willingness and joy. Professor Charlene Nakamoto-Lovine, welcome back. I've known you forever, so please excuse the Charlene introduction. But for our viewers, Dr. Levine is a professor of history. She's published a variety of topics, but I think correct me if plantation life and immigration in the late 19th, early 20th century to Hawaii. Is that your specialty? Okay, so we've invited her for a second time. I think you folks might remember the wonderful discussion about memorials. We've invited her back today to, I think, do something very difficult. Immigration's on the table. It's been on the table for 25 to 30 years. And perhaps she can help us better understand what the history of immigration is to the US. And as Jay has suggested, how that rubs against people's views about diversity and melting pot. And I think we probably reached a crisis point in immigration, at least on the southern border. So Dr. Levine is going to go through the history, sort of the high points of the history, and help us understand how that can help us try to untangle the current immigration questions. Is that okay, Jay? Is that fair enough? Yeah, yeah. So I mean, I don't want to make it sound like it's less important than it is, but it's very important. It's very important. But a friend of mine was in the House, he was counsel for the House immigration committee for a career or decades. And he'd go to work every morning and he'd write bills that would reform immigration. None of them ever happened. What a career, eh? So, you know, we have a problem in this country because it wasn't just politicized with Trump. It was politicized a long time ago, and Congress can't seem to do anything about it. And yet for the melting pot, the future of the country for its proper diversity and economic success, it's got to have immigration reform. And so here we are, Charlene. What have we done? Was it better before? Was it better when Emma Lazarus said, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free? That always makes my heart go faster. And what happened to us? We seem to have lost our edge on appreciating immigrants. Well, I would start off by saying the term melting pot is also controversial because the question about whether we're really melting together, you know, I think some people would say it's more like a mixed plate or what would you say, Peter? One of the metaphors used is a tossed salad. You eat the salad, but each item. And I think you're absolutely right. But regardless of what term we choose, we're getting back to Jay's point really about, I think fundamentally, is this a country which welcomes people while proclaiming it is a diverse society? And I think we've kind of rubbed up right now in a crisis about whether we are willing to be a diverse society. And that has always included new people or whether all of the replacement theory or fears of the other are undermining. I mean, almost regardless whether it's tossed salad, I think that the melting pot is a problem about once people are immigrants here, how do they be accepted or not? But, you know, allowing people here is the first step, right? And then working out how we coexist. So I think if you could help us understand either metaphor, but just help us understand that while those metaphors and goals have been used, what has been the reality of American immigration policy? You know, I think probably, and Jay, I'll speak for both of us, maybe since the later 19th century, right, post civil war, when there were significant numbers of immigrants coming in. I think pre-civil war is a different situation. The immigrants were the slaves, right? That was the largest portion of immigrants. So if you could sort of help us untangle, you know, whether or not submit the reality, the idea was out there that we're supposed to be open. Well, I mean, okay, so I'm currently teaching a U.S. history class that focuses on the first peoples and the settlement of the Americas, going up to the pre-civil war period. So I'm in my mind, I'm really thinking about this earlier part of U.S. history, and I'll get to the 19th and 20th century. But I do like to start off when we think about immigration with regards to how, and the question about, are we going to be a diverse society? I do like to recognize not just about whether we accept people from other countries, but how there's been forced migrations in U.S. history. So I have an image that I wanted to share, and this is just one example, and this is about the Trail of Tears and how the Cherokee were being forced in the mid-19th century to leave their homeland, which was, it boarded four states, including Georgia, and they were being told to move farther west so that Anglo-Americans could take over their land. And these were the most assimilated, probably one of the most assimilated tribes in the whole country because they had mainly, they had adopted Christianity, they even adopted slavery, they had created a constitution for their people. Okay, they did all the things that you're supposed to do to be an American, but they were being forced to move. So besides just thinking about whether we accept people, I also want our listeners to be aware of how the U.S. government has forced people to move within the country. So that's the image up there, and that policy, so this is just one example, you know, there were other tribes that would be forced to move later than this, like the Ney Perse, or the Pierce-Noses, right, that that were like in the Oregon area, and they were led by Chief Joseph, and he was forced to also move his people with his people. And then the other example of migration that I like people to think about before we get into the 19th and 20th century policies was the later ones is, and whether we're going to be a diverse society is about the history of slavery, which Peter already brought up, but this question about, you know, as the country was debating, are we going to be a free nation, or are we going to allow slavery? And as the nation expanded westward, would the new territories be free or enslaved? The U.S. government passed the Fugitive Slave Act, so Congress passed this act in 1850, and that made it a crime for, well, so slaves escaped, were trying to escape to free states, and you were aware of this, as an American citizen, you had a responsibility to return those escaped slaves to their owners. And if you didn't make any effort to do that, and if instead you aided them in any way, then you could be sent to jail. I think it was for six months in jail and $1,000 fine. This is in 1850. So this kind of relates, I think, today to, and, you know, so we have abolitionists who are outraged by this act, because they thought it was forcing them to act against their conscience, oppose the slavery, and, you know, to return the slaves to their owners, you know, mainly in the southern states. But today we have laws about, along the southern border, that if you aid people who are refugees or people who are seeking, you know, who are needing help along the border, if you pick them up and you render aid, that's a crime. You're supposed to just call the authorities and have them take the people. But we all know that the facilities to manage refugees and immigrants at the southern border are inadequate right now. It seems to me that the slavery issue is an essential one, because of the abolitionists, including Lincoln's argument that freed slaves should be returned to Africa. I think already in this discussion, right, is a question of whether abolition will mean equality, which is certainly did not, or whether absolute abolition would even mean allowing and encouraging African Americans to live in the country. So I think you've hit out a very important point that even the debate about, and Lincoln was among the advocates at one point, and Marcus Garby, of course, will lead this in the 20s, of the return to Africa movement. And since Liberia was there. So that's an interesting issue that I think you brought up maybe inadvertently, but really essential to our argument. And your argument about the vigilanteism is precisely what the state of Texas is doing. So if you aid and abet an abortion, right, you're fine and put a tail. And historians have pointed out that that's really replicating the fugitive slave act. So if you, for example, flee the state and get an abortion elsewhere, or you're a doctor who helps a patient flee, it's really mirrored on the fugitive slave act. Yeah. And ironically, Governor Newsom is going to try to do the same thing in California for gun ownership. So he's inverted it. And you're allowed to turn in your neighbor who has a gun and get a reward for turning in your neighbor who has a gun. So it's kind of it's a little bit the genie out of the bottle. So how do you think that's very, very helpful about the pre civil war? How do you think as a historian, those help set the questions and template when the nature of immigrants tended to change. So more southern and eastern Europeans, for example, Chinese with the railways, etc. Can you tell us a little bit about what the policies were in the later 19th, early 20th, and how you think they might have been influenced by what you just very helpfully described. Okay. So up until 1880, most immigration was European and but not Southern, right, or Eastern as European, as you said. So then there was concerns about opposition to this kind of how the how the United States was changing. And so that's that's what led to some of the first immigration restrictions. And so I have an image. So yeah, there's this one that shows fear of the Irish, the Irish Catholic, right. And then the Chinese who were being brought in who were drawn to the gold rush were also being recruited to work on the trans the railroad across the continent. So this leads to the first exclusion act that targets a particular race in 1875. It's also known as the Page Act, but it made it a felony to import Asian forced laborers and also people who are prostitutes. But that becomes a way to say Chinese women can't come in because they're presumed to be prostitutes at the time. And then, you know, over time, and so, you know, since we're in Hawaii, I would say, you know, Hawaii doesn't become part of the US until annexation, right, 1898, 1900, we become a territory. And at that time, then Hawaii became subject to all the US laws regarding immigration. So then the anti Chinese immigration laws applied to Hawaii, which forced the sugar planners to have to go look for a new source of labor. They not only were the Chinese trying to leave the plantation, but the US law said you couldn't bring in new Chinese labor. So that's what that's what compelled the planners to go look for Japanese, Koreans, Okinawans, right, and Filipinos, etc. But over the over the course of the early 1900s, then new laws are passed to also bar those kinds of groups. And in 1924, we have the Immigration Act, which is, which is, which makes permanent restrictions that had been started a few years earlier. And these, these, the Immigration Act of 1924 now limits the amount of Southern and Eastern European immigrants. So that's, this images is about that here. This is, this is now setting a quota system. And the quotas are so low for, for Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Southern and Eastern Europe that it basically is not really allowing much immigration at all. And this is again to sort of keep America, you know, with the dominant culture of being, you know, Western European Protestant. So Peter, did you have anything you want to add as a European historian? Just read in the 1924 Act are clearly racist, clearly and totally inexcusably racist, right? It's modeled on things up that way. You're saying that this country needs to be built on certain races and not others. I mean, I wonder if there was any opposition on that basis at the time in 1924. Oh, there was opposition to it. Yeah. But you would have to say that the political weight was entirely behind it. And we have to contextualize it a little bit, right? At 1924 is not only after the First World War, it's after the Soviet revolution. So as part of the Palmer raids and the Red Scare, that very easily moved into a racial scare. I mean, one of the characteristics of US history is really to have the two combine, a political and racial scare. You don't, you don't just, you don't disconnect them. So in the late 19th century, antagonism towards the Eastern and Southern Europeans was reinforced by the notion that Southern and Eastern Europeans were revolutionary Republican with a little R, politically dangerous. Then you have to add what I think the viewers know is the social Darwinist view that these people were thought of as inferior, quote, unquote, and being inferior, they would weaken or dilute the American corporate blood. And we have that today as well, right? All these things come either political fears, racial fears, and then pseudo scientific biological fears. Before we got together, you mentioned the displacement theory. And I think you can see the displacement theory repeatedly. So Northern European Protestants fear the unrest and the rebellious nature, plus their displacement by Irish Catholics. Irish Catholics flood over in their minds with the famine. And so they're not just going to be political worry, right? But you reinforce the Catholic Protestant tension. Late 19th century Asian laborers, Southeast and Eastern Europeans are going to displace. One of the uglier sides of this is that most late 19th century labor unions across the Anglo speaking world supported these restrictions. So unions in Australia, unions in South Africa, unions in the US supported these restrictions. Because part of the argument was the owners and the state would bring in workers, right? The more workers, the less the bargaining power of the unions. That interaction with entry, the last entry is the one that everybody dumps on, including the next to last entry. Particularly if there's a particular labor niche. So in the Southern border, most Anglos in America would not be farm workers. It's a horrendous life. So you see a slightly different relationship. In late 19th, early 20th century, it was about factory jobs. Immigrants would come and they would replace Anglos in the steel mills, for example. And that was a major issue in organizing in places like the coal mines, because the owners would bring in non-Anglo workers to try to break the union. And the union situation was they often had to go with those restrictions. Now I don't want to paint abroad. I don't want people to leave here saying every worker, right? But we're talking about the official positions of unions supported. It's really sad because by that time in the early 20th century, it should have been clear that this country was better off with immigrants. That immigrants would be the labor force, immigrants would be the creatives, immigrants would work hard and try to be good citizens. And there was already an experience of 50 years or so, including my family in 1905 to demonstrate that. And yet, with all of that knowledge or all of that data, so to speak, by 1924, we're trying to shut it down. And there are other people who must have been paranoid. And the question I put to you, Charlene, is the US is exceptional. Anybody uses that word, it makes my hair stand on end. The US is exceptional. We had all these limitations and obstacles even early on in the 20th century about this for reasons that were clearly racist. And was that happening elsewhere? Was there a melting pot or a salad bowl in Europe, for example, as there is today, where countries would be limiting the movement of people, limiting their options? Or were we the only bloody ones? Well, the 1924 American legislation is modeled on the first national piece of legislation in Australia. Australia became Commonwealth in 1901. And the first piece of legislation is racial restriction. So it's very common in the white settler anglo-world. I think we have to rethink migration is, in other words, are you inviting people in to do work, but with no intent of making them citizens, right? We need the labor. They come here. They live together. They're the German guest workers. Or are you inviting people in to become citizens and fully participating in society? That's very rare historically, unfortunately. When you look at immigration, you may welcome somebody, but you stick them in a ghetto. You don't necessarily get them voting rights act. One of the big issues in Britain today is whether the grandchildren of Jamaican immigrants are covered by the national health insurance. No, that was never a question until today. But England has done pretty well. That's obviously a multicultural society. And look at the prime minister right now today. Right. But you could say the same thing. We had Barack Obama, but I don't think you'd want to go on the record of saying we're not a racist society. Britain's an interesting case. And we can talk about it differently. Britain's model. Let's shift, Peter. Let's shift the reform. Sure. We got to ask. We only have a couple of minutes. So what are the options in terms of reform? What's in the hot seat? Who is asking for reform, if anyone? Is Mitch McConnell asking for reform? That's a rhetorical question. And who is opposing reform and why? And where is this all heading? Can you talk about that? Well, this is more contemporary stuff that I don't normally like. Think about what you know. And is there anything, I mean, you brought up very important points. And we all know the past is not really the past. So, you know, when somebody decides what to do on the southern border, they're using their own memory or their own history about what they think the border could or should be. So in the couple of minutes, could you just give us perhaps a few points that you think your good understanding and deep understanding of the past could help at least address the issues? Like, Well, okay. Is there something like DACA? Has there ever been anything like DACA? And it seems to me to answer your question, Jay. That's one of the hot points. People are here. People were invited here. And now you're telling them to leave, which is, as we say every week, a shanda. Okay. So from what you've studied, do you think there any, if you were in the congressional committee, and they invited you as a historian, what would you ask them to think about from what you know? Well, when I would say, you know, the conversation is often about the illegal immigration, about all these people pouring over the southern border. But I'm just teaching this week about in the 19th century, it was Americans that were crossing into Mexican territory. They were welcomed by Mexico as long as they pledged loyalty to Mexico and agreed to be Catholic. But, but they didn't hold up their end of the bargain because then they decide with some Tejanos to break away from Mexico. And this is how we end up getting Texas, right? And so actually, at one time, it was the Americans, the Anglo Americans who were the illegal immigrants in Mexico. And so I always like to, when we think about our current controversies, to think that it used to be the reverse story, basically, not exactly the reverse, but, right? Right. So we don't feel so morally, you know, superior, I guess. Exceptional. Exceptional. Right. And of course, this border means nothing to people who are indigenous and also intermarried often with Spaniards, you know, Mexican, right? So. Right. There's even a basketball team right on the board where they're Anglo and Mexican players together. Yeah. I guess that's very, very helpful to look at that history and recognize that that border has always been porous and always been a point of debate. I guess I would, we only have a couple minutes. But notice the Canadian border has not, well, that there's a lot of border at all. Well, never. That's an interesting comparison. And so if Charlene and I were there, I would ask Congress to think about, rethink a couple of basic assumptions. All right. Statistics do not show that immigrants commit more crimes than anybody else. Right. Because criminality and immigration is often linked. All right. There are certain gangs. There's no doubt about it. But all the statistics, the FBI statistics show there's no correlation and there certainly is no preponderance. So we have to rethink that. Right. Secondly, we have to rethink the relationship between the Canadian and Mexican border. There are lots of drugs that go back and forth between Canada and the US. There's lots of illegal immigration. If you're really worried about a terror attack, it's much more likely to come. So we have to rethink, you know, all this attention on the southern border. The southern borders problems are also actually quite relevant to the northern border. You know, there was an article in this morning's paper about Germany, which is a study. And I want to commend to you the movie called The Swimmers. It's about two Iraqi sisters who migrate into Germany and wind up in the Olympics, as a matter of fact. And it's the story of how the Germans treat them. It's really worth watching to see the German attitudes under Angela Merkel and around that time. So in the newspaper article this morning, it talks about how Germany is reforming its immigration policy, or at least trying to. And what they're doing is focusing. And we have rules like this too. I don't know if our rules are as broad or well thought out. But if you have expertise, okay, you'll stand a very good chance of getting permanent residence right away in Germany under these new rules. I don't know if they had those rules before. But it seems to me, and this is my question to you, Charlene, is that a solution here? Does that that would work for some Germans anyways? Okay, we don't want these unwashed people from the Middle East coming up here and from sub-Saharan Africa. They're not really going to help us much. But if we had doctors and professionals, one kind or another, we can't really complain about that. So the old objections, the truly racist objections, are met that way. And if we did that in the United States, if we focused on it, look, you want to come to the US and go to school, find a way to go to school, become an expert, get certified. And then we will welcome you with open arms more than before. Would that help? You want to tackle that? Well, I thought I was just reading something that was saying that the that sub-Saharan African immigrants are more likely to have gone to college than immigrants from many other parts of the world. So that's kind of, but yet, once they are in the United States, they're, they're, they have more challenges economically, but that's more about racism than about them not having a bachelor's degree or some kind of advanced degree. Suppose I'm Congress, and I shifted the focus from quotas and the like, and a lot of the silly rules or clearly racist rules. To look, if you're qualified, you know, as a professional, if you have these degrees, whatever you got them in, however well you did on your exams, I suppose, you know, then you can come in and we will really welcome you because we think that helps our country. And that raises two, though, vital existentialist points, Jay. One is that immigration and migration are not US issues, they're global issues. And by doing that, you aren't encouraging the brain drain from countries that need those people. So if we open up and say you're a top engineer, come here, that robs Bangladesh. And that's a real issue. And that's part of what Congress needs to recognize is it's not, it's not a national issue. It's a global issue. For example, you know, 50 years of American foreign policy in Central America, certainly, is one of the reasons among many that people are fleeing. You know, you can't continue to support right wing death squads and think that mothers with seven kids would not walk a thousand miles to save them. So the US has to think of this not as just our problem. It's a global problem. And we caused some of the problems, not all, the moves caused some of that. I agree with everything you said. Brain drain, but secondly, my second existentialist point is that if you do that, then you might as well paint graffiti over Emma Lazarus's poem. Because the whole point of Emma Lazarus's poem was the US is a society and an economy for those who need it. We're big enough, rich enough, we get bigger and richer. And so we don't just want engineers, right? We want those folks who are trying to find a better life. So by focusing on, you know, Bangladeshi engineers or Sudanese graduate students, right, you're really putting into question those two very, very important. I agree with you. But what I'm saying is, would Congress do that? Would that help it get through? Would that help them, you know, the political machine? I don't think I don't think so. Because if you start, for example, if you start with that argument, the entire agricultural industry is going to be pissed off. The agricultural industry of this country depends upon immigrant labor. So if you start saying, you know, we'll take engineer from El Salvador, but we're not going to take the person who's going to work 16 hours, you're going to have the angry agricultural industry up in arms. You know, Charlie, what he's really saying is we have to get back to Emma Lazarus. We have to get back to a world where there is no replacement theory. To a world where we are completely open. We believe in offering people a new life, a better life. But how do you, once you say that, it's a big problem. Once you say that, how do you stop the whole world from coming to the US? Everybody wants that. By helping invest and develop the rest of the world. You know, you don't want people from El Salvador. Immigration policy goes way beyond immigration. That's what you're saying. Exactly. No, exactly. Particularly if you look at, you know, who's coming, why they're coming. If you talk about people who are climate migrants or migrants from tyranny, the West, and this is not a question of guilt. Okay. I mean, let's get away from that. The West is partially responsible for those problems. And even if the West doesn't feel it's responsible, the West is hurting because of those problems. Let me make a call to the secretary general of the United Nations and tell them to get on the stick already. That's the problem. And how do you get the world to agree on this? It's a global problem. I totally agree. It is a national problem. It's way beyond immigration. Sorry, Charlene, but it's way beyond immigration. So we have to somehow connect immigration with racial policy, with global policy, with a new worldview. And frankly, that whole new worldview seems further off from the thinking of our electorate than it was 10 years ago, or 20. How are we going to change the way people think in this country on both ends of that? I like that Peter brought up climate justice because the U.S. is the number one polluter, isn't it, in the world? China seconds? It has been. Without the lockdown, China probably would be. But with the lockdown, China's use of fossil fuels has gone way down. But if the Chinese economy ever picks up again. But the U.S. over history has been right. I mean, it was Britain before and then the U.S. Yep. Right. So for example, and I'll just close at this. So in Hawaii, because the U.S. has this compact with Micronesia, Micronesian immigrants can come to Hawaii. But part of the reason they want to come is not just because they have this agreement, but because of climate change inundating their low islands, lack of access to medical care because we've polluted their islands with our nuclear tests. So that's a perfect example what Peter's talking about. But of course, highly controversial in Hawaii, this issue of Micronesian immigration. So it's a good example of what you talked about. You know, you may invite people here, but they'll be kept in a public housing project, right? And there'll be racism towards them. Even people of color against other people of color, right? It's not even just an Anglo issue. I know we're out of time. So I want to thank Charlene. Obviously, these are wonderful points, illustrations were good. But I think for us in our audience, I have to leave with kind of a depressing point. Sorry, Jay, is if we listen carefully to what Professor Levine has said, the replacement theory has almost always been part of American political life and American immigration policy in one way or another. It's the group that is doing the replacing might have changed. But it seems to be among the things that Charlene says is there's always been this argument that somebody else is threatening us. And that threat is not just crime, et cetera, but literally replacing us from being the centerpiece of society and the polity. It's depressing. Charlene, do you see an enlightenment coming? Do you see this country shifting from this replacement theory, these racist concepts? Well, there's always, you know, as, you know, other people around the world, like including maybe protests right now in China over COVID policy. I mean, people can always take inspiration from the democratic ideals our country was founded on and push for more, you know, more opportunity, more diversity, right? All men or all people are equal and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I mean, a lot of people can claim that and that could take us to a more enlightened society. Oh, we've got to get them on the show. Yeah, Charlene is younger and more optimistic than us all apart. I would say there is hope because if you ask younger people, most younger people don't buy it. They usually do not buy the replacement or replacement theory. So if you want to keep the younger people with a fresher, open idea, you got to also provide a future for them, which means probably addressing climate change. You know, the people who are more hopeful about society are not particularly hopeful about the future. And that's not a good molecule to have. So the other thing I'm going to suggest, which you know I'm a pie in the eye guy, and that's why the State of Hawaii pays me, is that the other issue besides climate change is the old problem of nationalism. We have to stop thinking about these things in national terms and think about them in international terms. And it seems to me climate change is one of the ways we can think about that. The Greenland glacier is going to affect LA. It's not, you know, what happens in China affects very much what happens in Africa. So I think, you know, if we can provide an economic future for the young by addressing climate change and using climate, I mean, this is why you asked me to come on, right? This is why the university gives me its exorbitant salary. All right, that's part of that. Pay you the big, okay. Thank you very much. And I think that people have to go beyond internationalism and think about globalism. I mean, internationalism built into it, right, is these two countries are going to, you know, be at each other's fists, but eventually resolve a problem and instead really think in global terms. Climate change has erased borders. They really have no meaning, right? It's like acid rain in Canada. We did acid rain, spread across the Canada. The border didn't matter, right? And I think that's our, the young people also, through social media, are much more global than we ever were. So what I get out of this is that immigration reform is really one part of a much larger issue. It's an issue about making people stop being self-interested and stop feeling they're all exceptional, making them altruistic on a global basis, making them care about their neighbor and care about their neighboring country. We got a long way to go, but I think all those things are connected. And maybe early, you know, young people getting into office, young people who believe in diversity, who believe in justice, you know, can do that as long as they get into office in great numbers. So I'm with you, Peter. I'm with you, Charlene. Oh my God, a glimmer of hope. This show is always supposed to end on a downer. We're not supposed to have glimmers of hope. Yeah. Yes. And maybe the U.S., the U.S. needs to be humble because there's other countries like China rising. So we might, you know. We did see a little step left. We did see a little step last week in which the U.S. did agree to provide for the fund that will go to countries where there have been catastrophes based on climate change. Now, even though it's a little step, right, it's an admission publicly that there is such a thing as climate change, right? And there's an admission that climate change can victimize people who are not responsible for climate change. So that's a pretty important little step now. It's not going to be a whole lot of money and with the economy the way it is. But I think that's, if we want to end on a practical, hopeful note. I want to add one more point before we go, as we've always been the city on the hill. We've always had moral suasion, however, our frailties. And if we did become visionary and enlightened in this way, other countries, even countries that have maybe other agendas that people in those countries would follow us, we still have the possibility of being a global leader. Thank you so much, Charlene Charlene Nakamoto Levine. And of course, my co-host Peter Hoffenberg for a great discussion. I really appreciate it. Aloha. Thank you. Bye. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktecawaii.com. Mahalo.