How to use this Page

I attended the CNMI Bar Association luncheon on 5/13, 2008 and listened to a presentation by Deanne Siemer about the recently issued emergency regs. I also read the regs which Deanne provided in advance.

There are some interesting, and troubling, aspects to what's going on just now as our current administration responds to ISLA, P.L. 110-229 (chapter 7) [ f/k/a S. 2739].

1. Deanne's most outrageous statement was probably her boast that she's urging vociferously that Governor Fitial fight P.L. 110-229 with litigation in court. She thinks the law is terrible because from her viewpoint it is intended to shut down the CNMI's economy and prevent our recovery and any possible move in that direction.

Her unstated view of our economic recovery is essentially-we will get rich off the backs of poor foreign workers. We need cheap foreign labor for any economic success. We are incapable of finding a niche in any economic market if we can't take advantage of cheap, non-citizen, workers whom we can abuse and misuse.


Photo by Angelo Villagomez

Although she reiterated several times how horrible she thought the new federal immigration law is and how she is urging Governor Fitial to litigate (and mentioned that she herself is a litigator), I didn't hear her state any legal grounds upon which the law would be challenged.

2. Deanne went through the emergency regs. The government has come up with a number (22,417) that represents an assessment of how many aliens are in the CNMI who entered or renewed under a permit that would entitle them to work. Not all of these entered as "contract workers." For example, an IR spouse would be entitled to work and would be counted in this number. Trafficking victims, regardless of how they entered, who have been given special P permits are included. Missionaries are included, etc.

This number (22,417) is the cap that is now in place under ISLA, according to Deanne. (ISLA contains a provision that says the CNMI cannot increase the number of alien workers once the law becomes law, which was 5/8/2008).

3. In order to comply with the cap over the next year, the regs use a "body for body swap" method. One alien out who is counted in the number means one can come in. This will keep the CNMI from going over the cap.

4. The devil is in the details. When I read these emergency regs before the CLE presentation, they seemed almost innocuous, and in some ways, good. When Deanne explained how they would be interpreted, I began to see through the veil of nice words.

A company may claim the "slot" for the body-for-body-swap if they repatriate an alien worker. BUT THE WORKER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THEIR WORKER! The company has 90 days to claim the slot.

If I understood correctly, a company can repatriate aliens facing deportation proceedings and claim the slot. Wendy Doromal noted in a recent blog post that the newest Labor policies call for deportation of workers with unsatisfied judgments (absent a court order providing for their staying and getting a transfer) and she asked on her blog, Unheard No More, where the money would come from to deport workers--well, here's where it will come from. Companies that want to bring in new workers can get a slot for every worker they repatriate.

I fear this will encourage companies to "help" aliens return against their wills and then claim the slot.


5. It wasn't quite clear to me whether the company who repatriates an alien owed money by a former employer would have to pay for the judgment, but at one point Deanne did seem to say that employers might be able to buy the voluntary departure of aliens owed money by paying the money owed. According to her, there are many aliens owed small amounts of money (she mentioned $200 or $300).

It would be much more helpful if companies were required to pay the judgment through court (or even DOL) and there is verified payment--not just some signature by the foreign worker (who may be pressured or tricked into signing a complete satisfaction in order to get some/any money).

6. There was some talk about "voluntary" departures. This was in the context of aliens overstaying, who might be given a one-time opportunity to voluntary depart without any stigma or deportation effect, meaning they could come back with a job, if possible. Companies who want to secure the slot of such an alien would pay for the repatriation.

Deanne said that under U.S. law there is a complete ban on return if you are deported. And she talked glowingly of the DOL website with job listings that aliens in their home countries could peruse in order to secure a means of returning. I would need to check further on all of this, and for now remain skeptical.

7. She mentioned that companies could get slots in other ways, through a point system for unclaimed slots, a lottery, for "anticipated projects" and, in some cases, just because the Labor Department gives them slots within DOL's discretion. To me, this seemed to indicate that DOL would continue to operate in an arbitrary and capricious manner to the benefit of some and detriment of others.

8. Temporary absences by foreign workers (for medical leave or vacation) will not be counted as a departure/repatriation. This seemed sane and reasonable.

9. Deanne continued to praise CNMI PL 15-108 as a wonderful law designed with the possible loss of immigration in mind. I've blogged a little on PL 15-108 and believe it to be fundamentally flawed-attempting to preserve a two-tiered system where locals are "trained" for management with higher paying jobs while aliens do the real work and get paid a pittance. What I found interesting was how NOW Deanne is saying this law was supposed to be in anticipation of federalization of immigration, not in lieu of it, when originally it was touted as a reason why the U.S. should back off of its attempt to apply U.S. law to the CNMI.

10. Deanne said there are about 1,900 illegal aliens in the CNMI. She foretold a complete quagmire in the transition, believing the U.S. will be incapable of handling all of the immigration caseload.

I didn't believe her. Right now, one judge in Superior Court handles the deportation calendar. I don't see why Judge Munson in federal court would be less capable. Nothing about the structure of the AG's office and DOL make me think they have a lock on doing it right and the U.S. would automatically screw up.

11. The periodic exit requirement of P.L. 15-108 will not be enforced, according to Deanne. It wasn't clear to me if that was throughout the period leading up to the transition, or if it only applied for only the first six months, subject to being enforced especially if the start date of the transition period is delayed.

12. Deanne said the DOL is honoring "two year" contracts, so that alien workers can, if their employers agree, renew now or at their regular renewal date for a new 2 year period of work.


I need to think about all of this more and get a better handle on the details. I don't think the emergency regs are completely bad. I think they at least nod at following the letter of P.L. 110-229, but I don't think they're quite in keeping with the spirit of that law.

Guess we'll see how things play out.

The good news--President Bush signed S. 2739 into law. Read the details, press releases, and celebrate at Wendy's blog.

I'm concerned about

1) spouses who are being divorced.

The CNMI immigration did not require U.S. citizen spouses to get U.S. green cards for their alien spouses. So alien spouses in the CNMI have not had any way to gain permanent residency when their U.S. citizen spouses did not get them green cards.

Sometimes they don't get green cards because the U.S. citizen spouse intentionally wants to use the lack of permanent status as a means for control over their alien spouse.

But sometimes, they just can't afford the cost of the green card processing.

So now, in the CNMI, divorce means you lose your local "immediate relative" status. Just today I looked at a woman's application for help in a divorce case where she has teen children, has been living in the CNMI and been married to a U.S. citizen for more than 15 years, and now has been served with divorce papers after separating from her spouse several months ago.

In the U.S., she would have gotten a green card soon after the marriage, and would now already be a U.S. citizen. Here, once the divorce is finalized, she'll lose her "local IR" status and be deportable. She'll be "illegal" when U.S. immigration kicks in next June 1, 2009, unless she manages to get hired on as a contract worker.

This seems so wrong. Her kids are U.S. citizens, but still too young to petition her in. This is not a one-person issue--there are many spouses in this situation, spouses without green cards, spouses whose marriages are of long duration, but aren't surviving the stresses of life now.


2) Widows.

As noted above, spouses do not all have green cards. In the U.S., there's a requirement for U.S. citizen spouses to get their alien spouses green cards if they live in the U.S. So there's a corresponding law that upon divorce of the U.S. citizen spouse, the alien spouse has no status, except or unless s/he has a green card. (This prevents alien spouses of U.S. citizens living abroad from automatically claiming a right to relocate and live in the U.S.) But alien spouses living in the U.S., upon widowhood, generally continue to have a right to their green card status.

In the CNMI, alien spouses who have faced this issue upon the death of their U.S. citizen spouse have been granted by the Commonwealth Superior Court recognition that they have a right to remain in the CNMI, that the death of the U.S. spouse does not extinguish their "immediate relative" status under CNMI law. The CNMI Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.

So on June 1, 2009, when U.S. immigration takes over, these widows and widowers will probably be considered legal, but will have uncertain/no protection under U.S. law. And no clear category that they'll fit into under the new U.S. immigration system.

3) "CNMI Permanent Residents."

In the late 1970's and early 1980's, the CNMI had a "permanent residency" law that allowed aliens to become permanent residents of the CNMI. Something like 200+ permits were issued under this law. When the law was repealed, these "permanent residents" retained their status.

On June 1, 2009, when U.S. immigration takes over, these "CNMI permanent residents" will be legal, but will have uncertain/no protection under U.S. law, and no clear category that they'll fit into under the new immigration system.

4) U.S. citizen children who are minors with alien parents.

I feel for these kids. They're U.S. citizens. They have a right to be here in the CNMI. But their parents don't. As the economy continues to plummet downward, these parents are not only losing the economic security of having a job, but with job loss these parents face deportation as no longer having a legal status.

It's the kids who will suffer. They will either be left here with others to care for them--breaking up the family, or they'll move with their parents back to the parents' home country--suffering disruption and other problems. Maybe they'll come back when they're old enough or have the money, but they'll not forget how their parents were made to suffer without status.

5) Long-time workers facing unemployment.

As noted above, we have a lot of aliens who have lived in the CNMI for five, ten, twenty, and more years. For those who have decades of employment behind them, but now find themselves without jobs in our dwindling economy, they're just missing the boat by a fraction of an inch. It seems unfair.

If anyone should get status, it should be those who have worked and contributed to the CNMI for the longest time period, even if they've lost their most recent job in the economy.

Edit--adding #6, thanks to Lil Hammerhead:
6. Alien spouses of citizens from the Freely Associated States-FSM, Palau, RepMar. Years ago, Judge Munson ruled in a case filed by V.K. Sawhney that the CNMI couldn't just start re-classifying these alien spouses as "aliens" when they are married to people who were former TT citizens with a full right to live here (especially for those who had legal status as spouses when the Covenant went into effect). So the CNMI continued to give them IR status. Now they will face the same challenge as we transition from CNMI immigration to U.S. immigration, only against U.S. law (which I doubt will be as kind as Judge Munson's interpretation of due process). They have marriages, children, lives in the CNMI. But they're married to FAS citizens who have the right to live here by virtue of the Compact of Free Association.

What I think we need:

1) an immediate halt to new immigration of incoming aliens except for tourists; and an immediate halt to deportation except for tourists overstaying their entries that start today. Stripping the CNMI of these powers during the interim before the effective date of the U.S. immigration would prevent further harm.

2) an amnesty provision that grants "legal" status for up to 3 years (1 year of pre-U.S. immigration and then 2 years after transition start date)to all aliens here, whether workers, spouses, widows, permanent residents, students, or those just hiding out, coupled with a registration requirement. Any alien not registered when U.S. immigration takes control could automatically be deported.

3) a permanent residency track for those who have been here the longest. This could be done either by deciding on a specific number of years--e.g. been here 5 years (7 years; 10 years...) or it could be done by granting a specific number of permanent residency slots ( e.g. 1,000; 3,000; 5,000, 7,000...), starting with the aliens who have been here the longest and moving forward until the number of slots has been filled.

This would give us an "alien" worker population for industry and commerce; it would provide some certainty as we head into the transition; it would defeat the CNMI's current efforts to do a little last "kicking while they're down" of aliens here; and it would be nice to people who've not always been treated with the greatest respect.

jmho.

Bill Hicks made it fairly clear how easy it will be for us Marketing folk to enter into the kingdom of heaven, but to misquote another couple of humorous gents, there's some advertising that doesn't so much Fall as Saunter Vaguely Downwards.

Honda seem to be pretty good at what they do, here, here and here, Sony have also done some lovely stuff recently, here, here and here, and to give you a final trilogy, Orange don't do too badly either, here, here and here. Cadbury's caused a lovely bubble of chat with this ad (and some strongly worded emails between members of my family), and H&M have created this year's Heat-sponsored Advert of Guilty Pleasure, with Tesco (typed with gritted teeth) taking the runner-up place.

Of course, the bad old days of marketing remain; I noticed at the sides of my local swimming pool ads for Bratz DVDs, which forced me to duck my head under water to hide the tears. As a grown-up, I'm fully aware of all the things that advertising, however repugnant, allows - if it weren't for those Bratz posters, my local pool may well be my local Tesco - but when you see how well some folk do it, it makes you wonder why everyone doesn't. Or maybe it makes you feel the opposite. Volkswagen's current oddly phrased ad (about buying a VW "even though it's second, or even third hand") makes my temperature rise, as does Lloyds TSB's "Wouldn't it be nice" press ads (although that's mainly because they keep cancelling and losing my cards, apparently at random, and their customer service has been second-to-most).

Some ads seem to have a beautiful idea behind them, but very little to do with the product; some ads seem to have the same idea at the same time as everyone else (did anyone else notice in the last 12 months, John West, Fish4 and Bacardi all had ads featuring men dressed as fish running a marathon?); and some ads serve no purpose at all (why use the world's most famous supermodel to advertise making yourself look better with paints and potions, and why advertise TVs on TV - either it looks rubbish so you don't want a new one, or it looks great so you don't need one; plus, not one of us could name the product for any ads for TVs bar the Bravia ads). Some are just horrible; some gets tonnes of publicity while still seeming a little derivative. Some ads make the world seem a better place.

Penguin has dabbled in both cinema and television advertising, with some nice plaudits (and some criticisms) for each. We try to do new things, here and here, to entertain readers as much as anything else - and after all, it's books we're pushing, lovely books, not oil, drugs or cigarettes. Do you care about another newspaper ad, however clever the line? Would you like to be told about new titles? If so, how? And if not - what are you doing on the Penguin blog?

Sam the Copywriter

..........................................................................

...........................................................................