It's true that the State of Hawaii cannot control its own "immigration" policy as long as Hawaii remains a state in the US, or as long as states are not constitutionally allowed to do so.  

But as TY stated, SCOTUS ruled the State of Alaska COULD require one year of residency to be eligible to receive an annual share of APF dividends--even though as initially proposed, each individual Alaskan resident's share of annual APF dividends would have increased based on years of residency.  

Moreover, the arbitrary $10K per resident annual UBI that TY used in what I think is his intentionally hyperbolic UBI cost estimate--which I think he used to taint UBI as an "absurd" idea before it ever gets out of the crib--is obviously not a feasible starting point for discussion--economically or politically--IF he presumes the only possible UBI funding source is a "soak the rich" increase in taxes.  

So I hope TY will eventually read--and comment on--my list of other possible funding sources.  Aloha!