[flagged]
The US do have problems with large swaths of its Black population, and most of them are, to my mind, (self-)inflicted by segregation and oppression policies ranging from 1880s to 1950s.
Restrictions against foreigners buying real estate are pretty much accepted in wide parts of the world, with Canada being the most recent adopter to fend off wealthy Chinese people trying to safeguard their wealth against the CCP.
The issue with Hawaii is that it is (unlike, say, Puerto Rico) an official US State, which means that US citizens should have the right to live and buy/rent/lease real estate there - but at the same time, it does make sense to protect the Native population still existing, similarly to Native American reservations.
It obviously wasn't, but it's always good to see someone point to the stipulations of an indigenous treaty, while closing both eyes to the context in which it was drafted[1]... Or to the broader context of systemic discrimination that is very actively pissing on people, to this very day.
[1] Reparations for specific, not theoretical damages inflicted on indigenous Hawai'ian people by the government of the United States. But good on you for finding a theoretical[2] loophole! Look, everyone, feast your eyes - Europeans were actually the real victims of discrimination in Hawai'i, circa 1920!
[2] Presumably, there's some European person, somewhere [3], that can prove that half of their family tree[4] traces back to direct decadency from a non-settler European who lived on Hawai'i prior to 1778, and would like to be a beneficiary of the treaty, but isn't actually protected by it!
[3] Somewhere next to a spherical cow, and other pedantic, but utterly theoretical oddities.
[4] Unless you mean to tell us that there was some self-sustaining, secret isolated enclave of Europeans that have lived on Hawai'i prior to 1788, that only intermarried between eachother, I would expect that after a century and a half of intermarriage with native Hawai'ians, nobody either in 1920, or today would ever be able to tell the difference between that 'European' and a native.
Race-based laws are nonsense, because the concept of "race" itself is a pseudoscientific nonsense. There's no objective way to tell a "race" of many (or maybe even most?) people. Take President Obama for example. What race was he?
What bearing does 'race' have that on anything I said? The law in question solely speaks of 50% pre-1778 Hawai'ian ancestry. It doesn't say anything about 'race' genetics, skin color, hair color, or any other hereditary characteristics. It's a pretty simple question, that does not require unscientific hair-splitting - simply trace up your family tree, and count where your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents lived in 1778.
But since you've asked, Obama does not meet that criteria. His maternal grandparents are from Kansas, and his paternal grandparents are from Africa. Growing up in Hawai'i does not entitle him to those particular reparations settlers chose to grant to Hawai'ian natives.
any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778
Other groups oppressed by plantation owners like the Filipinos and Samoans just get the boot and even less land available to them due to racist policies. Samoan descendants are now even worse off than native Hawiians and have to contend with racially/segregation projected rarefication of land.