How to use this Page

Wallon Young will arrive and be the new deputy director at CUC, according to the Saipan Tribune. He'll earn between $156,000 and $180,000 per year.

In December 2008, American Samoa news reported that Wallon Young's business, Quantum Pacific, has a three month contract with the CNMI's CUC for $250,000, to act as consultants--unusual consultants in that they are to implement their proposals as well.

This seems to be part of the plan described in the Marianas Variety, also in December 2008--a $5.5 million plan.

Will it all work? Will we be able to end our one-year contract with Aggreko at exorbitant rates? And more significantly, is there a plan in place for routine and necessary maintenance when everything is repaired?

Here's hoping that something will work out right.

Add a Comment

Both the Saipan Tribune and the Marianas Variety report today on the CNMI's responses to the US Defendants' filings in its lawsuit challenging federalization of immigration here.

Both articles parrot the content of the CNMI's response, and give no analysis of the situation. For that, you need to check out Wendy's Unheard No More blog reports here and here.

There are two motions pending: the CNMI's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the US Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

For me, there is no legal merit in the CNMI arguement that control of alien labor is a matter of "local self-government" under the Covenant. It's hard to imagine that anything could be less "local" than a foreign work force.

I also find no legal merit in the repeated blathering that the US is breaching its contract with the CNMI by extending immigration here in the way it does. The Covenant is so crystal clear that the US could extend its control of immigration here, and do so by US Congressional action in a way it deems appropriate, that it's inconceivable how any respectable person would argue that to do so violates the contract between the US and the CNMI.

I can only hope that the federal court decides to dismiss the action and the CNMI attorneys are slapped with sanctions for filing a legally frivolous lawsuit.

Let us get on with the real task at hand--drafting regulations that will improve the situation here.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Jim Davies, in today's Tribune, writes that he has yet to see "Pew supporters offer any substantial proof to the concept behind the project."

1. We're not "Pew supporters." We're Friends of the Monument, supporters of marine conservation, people who want to preserve and protect our natural world.

2. The concept behind the project has been written about extensively--it's marine conservation. Some people have obviously missed all of the information that has been circulated about the benefits of marine conservation throughout the CNMI--not just recently, but for years. We have a lot of information, both from scientific studies and from our own experiences with the ocean.

3. The Marianas Trench Marine Monument project is essentially a project to have the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters around Uracas, Maug, and Asuncion declared a Monument, making them a federally protected marine sanctuary. The CNMI Constitution has already made the islands themselves a CNMI land sanctuary. The proposal, if adopted, would extend the same type of protection the CNMI has given to the islands into the waters, and provide for both CNMI enforcement and federal enforcement and funding.

The vast majority of scientific consensus is that the main agent of change in the oceans as far as fish populations is concerned is fishing.

Dr. Carl Safina, National Audobon Society's Living Oceans Program

There is an end to a resource. There's no unlimited supply of fish. You keep nibbling away at it, eventually you're going to get 'em all, or almost all of them. So you've got to be very careful.

Edwin Fuglvog, commercial fisherman, Alaska

Display Comments Add a Comment

Today's Tribune has the headline announcing Matt Gregory's resignation from the post of Attorney General. There have been occasional cries of discontent over Matt's handling of the post. There have been occasional rumors that Matt was being canned by the Governor. But mostly, there's just been Matt being very quiet in the job.

And I was surprised by the news of his resignation. The Governor has another 18 months in office. There doesn't seem to be any pressing reason to change Attorney General.

I read the news story looking for clues about the story behind the headlines. Matt's basic reason is a desire to return to private practice. Not every lawyer likes public service; and private practice is generally more lucrative. So this reason seems to cover the decision to resign completely.

But wait--in addition to this, Matt's statement announcing his resignation apparently mentions three specific topics:

1. the AG Office's commitment to fighting corruption (and their close working relationship with the feds in the case against Lieutenant Governor Tim Villagomez).

2. the AG's success in winning a lawsuit against the IRS and bringing in a "major monetary award" of $33 million.

3. the likely increase in tourism soon with an increase in flights, and the relatively small negative effect of federalization.

I find it interesting that Matt chooses these three particular items to highlight in his resignation statement. To me, it hints at stress and disagreements with the Governor.

The first --anti corruption--could almost be a white-wash. This government isn't any better at stopping corruption than any other has been; and in fact it seems wedded to the same corrupt practices of perks and nepotism that we've seen before. But Matt's quote on the bravery of his staff, who fight corruption "at severe career risk" suggests something else. It suggests a reality that the AG's office really is committed to enforcing the law and faces some pressure against doing their jobs.

The second tells us exactly what we've been asking--how much money is the Governor hiding from the CNMI Legislature in his budget projections? It seems that the Governor is funding the federalization lawsuit with public funds, and that he's not put those funds in any budget projection, but has them squirreled away, having received them as awards from litigation. Appropriations, however, are a congressional job, not an executive privilege. This money needs to be reported to the Legislature and subject to Congressional appropriation. Matt's mention of these funds is ammunition for the Legislature to use in getting control over all CNMI public funds.

The third is the most telling of all.

"While federalization has the capacity to damage the economy of the Commonwealth, we have increasing tourism numbers and you'll soon find out there is going to be a significant increase in flights. I believe we may see 19 additional flights in the next few months. So it's a couple steps forwad and one step back. Federalization is a negative but there are positives developing in parallel."

In other words, the doom and gloom disaster that Howard Willens has predicted isn't exactly an accurate portrayal of our likely future, from Matt's POV. And just the fact that Matt would suggest that federalization isn't the evil bogeyman that will send us into a tailspin from which we can't recover makes me think his resignation ties in to disagreements and stresses with the current Admininstration.

Of course, I could be wrong.


Now, I'm wondering who will be the new / next AG?
My predictions: AAG Greg Baka, AAG Tom Gorman, or Howard Willens.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Today's newspaper headlines from the Tribune and the Variety suggests that the CNMI may suffer negatively in its relationship with the U.S. because of filing the lawsuit. The Governor's public relations aide, Charles Reyes, tries to spin this concern as "discrimination" by the U.S. Nice try, but there's no suggestion anywhere that the U.S. plans to retaliate against the CNMI simply because it filed suit.

The Variety clearly exposes this concern as specifically related to drafting the regulations to implement the law. How can the CNMI administration cooperate in designing these regulations when it is challenging the underlying legislation? There is no doubt that the lawsuit will affect the CNMI-U.S. relationship as it concerns implementing P.L. 110-229.


More thoughts on the lawsuit:

The complaint is premised on several assumptions, mentioned in my previous post. It is also based on intentional disregard of certain facts and legal points.

1. No mention of U.S. sovereignty. The complaint speaks of the "terms of affiliation" between the CNMI and the U.S. as expressed in the Covenant.(Complaint paragraph 1.) The complaint repeatedly references the Covenant provision for the CNMI's right to self-government of local matters found in Section 102, and mentions this is the "core" of the Agreement. There is no corresponding concession or mention that the Covenant, at Section 101-perhaps even more fundamentally, clearly recognizes that the CNMI is not only in political union with the U.S., but also is "under the sovereignty of the United States of America."

2. No mention of the massive support for federalization from the foreign worker community. The complaint speaks of the impact of federalization on the foreign workers in the CNMI, characterizes those effects as solely negative, and paints itself as the champion of distressed foreign workers here. No where is there any mention of the massive support for federalization among the foreign workers here.

More ironically, some of the negative aspects of federalization that the CNMI complains of are the result of the legislation having been stripped of benefits for the alien workers at the insistence of the CNMI administration! Specifically, the complaint laments the effect on long-term workers, but argued to Congress against grandfathering these workers in with permanent residence.

3. Guam is hardly mentioned. In trying to portray the CNMI as isolated and remote, the complaint mentions the mainland and Hawaii, but ignores how close we are to Guam. (Complaint paragraphs 1, 14) It offers no explanation of why Guam can have a decent economy with U.S. control of immigration and the CNMI can't.


Besides omissions, there are some distortions presented in the Complaint. One could argue that the entire complaint-- where it calls our foreign labor workforce "stable" and predicts the doom & gloom for the CNMI future as if it were a certainty--is itself a distortion! But here are some other specific ones:

4. The Complaint makes a claim that the U.S. has violated Covenant section 105, but glosses over Sec. 105's opening text. That section starts as follows:

The United States may enact legislation in accordance with its constitutional processes which will be applicable to the Northern Mariana Islands, but if such legislation cannot also be made applicable to the several States the Northern Mariana Islands must be specifically named therein...

The only limitation on this broad power is the right of local self-government. And so the complaint tries to force the CNMI's desire for unlimited access to foreign workers into this exception.

Section 105, and the rest of the Covenant, grant as broad legislative power to the U.S. Congress with regard to the CNMI as it has with the rest of the States and Territories. Nothing in the Covenant suggests that the limitation of "local self-government" means something different here than it does in the rest of the U.S.

The Covenant expressly extended federal laws that were in existence at the time that applied to Guam to the CNMI (as they applied to the States) (Covenant sec. 502), with very limited exceptions. The Covenant expressly permits the U.S. to legislate for U.S. control of immigration (Covenant sec. 503(a)), and to extend minimum wage laws here (Covenant sec. 503 (c)).


5. Our lack of voting rights is claimed as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The claim is that the political process by which P.L. 110-229 was enacted was defective and violated the U.S. Constitution, Article.

This is by far the most interesting claim. It has emotional appeal. It resonates with our history lessons--no taxation without representation. And I imagine that every U.S. citizen here would support the push to give us voting rights in federal elections (especially the Presidential election).

Note this claim is not saying that the political processes of the Covenant (Section 902 talks) failed to occur or were not available. It is challenging the basic fact that the CNMI had no voting representative in the U.S. Congress.

The problems, as I see it, with this argument are two-fold: 1) This argument would mean that all U.S. laws enacted for the CNMI are defective (including budget appropriations and other help we are relying on). And 2) the Covenant itself expressly designed our relationship with the U.S. to exclude our representation in Congress! It gave us only a "Resident Representative." And it gave us a mechanism for negotiation and dialogue with the federal government through our CNMI government. (Covenant sec. 902.)

Attacking the political process by which P.L. 110-229 was enacted and applied to the CNMI is an attack on the basic, fundamental cornerstone of the COVENANT. If this were to succeed, it would likely wipe out the whole Covenant, or at least cripple it so severely we'd be back at the beginning of our negotiation process.

I doubt that any court in the U.S. would buy this argument.
It is especially ironic that this argument is raised in the very legislation that finally gives us a voice (however faint)-a voting representative/delegate to Congress.

6. Although the complaint says that it is aimed at the defective political process by which P.L. 110-229 was enacted, most of the verbiage is aimed at showing how wrong Congress was in its decision to extend immigration here. But in one of the court cases cited in the complaint has this to say:

...nothing...authorizes courts to second-guess the substantive basis for congressional legislation.

This is the heart of the matter. Our administration has leveled an attack on legislation it doesn't like, arguing how very wrong it is, how very bad it will be for the CNMI, how the U.S. Congress had miscalculated. But Courts simply don't get to change or stop legislation because they think Congressmen were uninformed.

(Too bad--we could challenge so much of what our CNMI Legislature does if this were the case!)

7. My favorite ridiculous claim in the complaint is that no other community in the U.S. is subject to the same level of federal restriction.

The very essence of P.L. 110-229 is to apply U.S. immigration law to the CNMI. The basics of this law apply to all of the U.S. The restrictions imposed here will, in fact, be more sensitive to our community and special needs, giving us benefits other U.S. communities do not have. These include the continuance of CNMI-Only permits for some foreign workers, so that we are allowed to have contract workers in job categories who wouldn't be allowed to work those same jobs in the U.S.


Summarizing: The CNMI's economy does not operate in a vacuum. It is tied to the U.S. economy, as well as being influenced by world events. When we suffer economically, we look to the U.S. for help, so even our "local" economic conditions have a greater effect beyond our borders.

Immigration and foreign labor are not "local" matters.

We've agreed to the CNMI in political union and "under the sovereignty" of the U.S. and have expressly acknowledged the power of the U.S. Congress to pass legislation that applies to the CNMI.

Nothing in P.L. 110-229, or in the way it was enacted, intrudes on our very limited right of "local self-government" over internal affairs.




A Last Comparison:

An Excerpt from "Slavery in the Light of Social Ethics," by Chancelor Harper, printed in Cotton is King, and Pro-Slavry Arguments: Comprising the Writings of Hammond, Harper, Christy, Stringfellow, Hodge, Bledsoe, and Cartwright, on This Important Subject, E.N. Elliott, ed. (Augusta, GA: Pritchard, Abbott & Loomis, 1860):

... But let us suppose it [emancipation] to be brought about in any manner, and then inquire what would be the effects.

The first and most obvious effect, would be to put an end to the cultivation of our great Southern staple. And this would be equally the result, if we suppose the emancipated negroes to be in no way distinguished from the free labourers of other countries...Even if it were possible to procure laborers at all, what planter would venture to carry on his operations under such circumstances? I need hardly say that these staples cannot be produced to any extent where the proprietor of the soil cultivates it with his own hands. He can do little more than produce the necessary food for himself and his family.

And what would be the effect of putting an end to the cultivation of these staples, and thus annihilating, at a blow, two-thirds or three-fourths of our foreign commerce? Can any sane mind contemplate such a result without terror? ...

COMPLAINT paragraphs 7 and 71 (portions):
"Finally, if left unchecked, P.L. 110-229's forced removal of two-thirds of CNMI's existing employment base and its projected devastation of the local economy by 50% or more would violate constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of CNMI's people, employers, and property owners.

P.L. 110-229 will strike a devastating, and perhaps fatal, blow upon the Commonwealth's economy by prohibiting the CNMI from ensuring an adequate supply of labor for local residents and businesses."

An end to slavery...Thanks to P.L. 110-229.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Senator Frica Pangelinan has introduced a bill that would reduce by 10% the salaries of our Supreme Court Justices and our Superior Court Judges.

The Supreme Court Chief Justice has written in opposition.

Display Comments Add a Comment

The Marianas March Against Cancer raised more than $70,000 this year! That's an amazing feat given that the economy here has gone from stagnant to inert.

As usual, the March was held at the athletic field at Hopwood Junior High school. All of the teams had booths ranged around the track. In true island style, I showed up about 9 PM for an event that "started" at 6 PM, and found out that they hadn't even finished introducing the teams, the over-night relay race of runners, joggers, and walkers around the track had not yet started, and I hadn't missed anything of note.

The atmosphere was great. There were a ton of people (I had to park in San Antonio!), the air was fresh and cool, and the familiar voice of Celia Mercado echoed from the speakers as she wrapped up the introductions, urged the teams to parade around the track, and then finally opened the track to the relay race.

The race was the usual mash of children and teens with excess energy dashing around the track at top speed, with a handful of slower, but not less dedicated, team members jogging and walking on the outer lanes of the track.

I wanted to add a photo here, but I didn't take any. Jack Hardy was busy photographing everything. But alas, I couldn't find any I could borrow. :-(


I don't know what team ran the most laps. I do know that TEAM BODIG did a great job in other categories. Team Bodig won the "spirit" award, which seems fitting because they had a great turnout of family, from the youngest to the oldest, and a whole lot of them were in MMAC tee shirts!

Team Bodig won the "best booth" award, too. They did an eclectic combination of broadway musical and Chamorro lisayu! Dorothy had escaped from Wizard of Oz and was serving hamburgers and hotdogs at the booth's food counter. You could take your food to an area of picnic tables, or detour down a yellow brick road that led through a rainbow arch, into a "room" with silk & paper flower streamers hanging from the tent ceiling, white pillars holding lit candle-glasses, and a multi-tiered altar covered with satin holding framed photos of the family members who had died from cancer. Only in Saipan.

Team Bodig also won the "most luminaries sold." They added more than 1,000 luminaries to the inside rim of the track, helping to light the route all night long.

And last and certainly not least, Team Bodig raised the most money of the teams in the family category (and I think overall, beating out corporate winner PIC by about $6,000).

Special kudos to TEAM BODIG! And kudos to all teams and their members, to all people in the community, who supported the MMAC, and to the sponsors and organizers. No one group could do this alone--this was truly a community effort.

Add a Comment

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.

Display Comments Add a Comment

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.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Here are my two ideas for how the CNMI could save some money:

Penny wise (and eco-friendly). STOP sending out memos for every "delegation of authority."
Literally reams of paper every month are used to send around to every government office whatever delegation of authority is happening.

Mr. High and Mighty, secretary of the stupid department, "will be off-island on official business from" this irrelevant date to that nonsensical date. During Mr. High and Mighty's absence, Mr. Muckety Muck will be acting secretary of the stupid department.

Do we not know about e-mail?

Pound wise. STOP fighting federalization. We've been spending large on lobbying, and now we're talking about litigation? We don't need to spend money on litigation. Lawyers are expensive. We have little chance of succeeding through court, and there are better uses for the funds.

And STOP the spending on lobbying.

Are we still paying $15,000/month to Oldaker, Biden, and Belair? Or did we stop after 1 year of payments, having stupidly renewed the first 6 month contract? In 2007 alone, we --the CNMI-- spent $160,000 on this lobbying firm! Not to mention the $60,000 we spent on subsidiary lobbying by Sandler, Travis, and Rosenberg! There's more great information at the Center for Responsive Politics, including reports on the issues these lobbyists worked on for the CNMI (immigration and trade).

And Governor Fitial said in his State of the Commonwealth message that U.S. Congressmen/Senators in Washington, D.C. don't know about the CNMI. What are we getting for all that money?

Does anyone know if we're still paying lobbyists? Is there a way to stop this insanity?

Display Comments Add a Comment

This is a short, off-the-cuff response:


Despite what Mr. Gourley says, the submerged lands issue is resolved. Roughly speaking, the submerged lands around our islands belong to the U.S. as an "exclusive economic zone" under U.S. law because no other alternative was reserved or defined in the Covenant. This is based on U.S. law, the same U.S. law applies here as it applies to all of the states.


Mr. Gourley's argument: the CNMI is trying to get the U.S. to give it some of the submerged lands that are part of the U.S. eez. If we have a National Marine Monument, there'll be less for the CNMI to beg from the U.S. (Let's keep the coffers open.)

My response. This is not an argument against protecting the natural habitat. It is the politics of control. If it's a good idea to have a protected zone, then it's a good idea whether the U.S. does it or the CNMI does it. And frankly, it's better for the CNMI to have the U.S. pay for it.

From my perspective, this argument (and all of Mr. Gourley's arguments) are based on a desire to keep the ocean open to commercial interests. Mr. Gourley would like the least amount of regulation between him and his clients and the natural world. This would make it easier to TAKE and TAKE and keep TAKING ocean resources.



My guess is that businesses who have little or no respect for the environment would find it easier to abuse the environment under CNMI control than under U.S. control (I say this, given the CNMI's poor performance at regulating any government activity). So Mr. Gourley's wanting the CNMI to have control isn't in the interests of the CNMI, but rather in the interests of the businesses who will then abuse our natural resources.

The CNMI doesn't have the money, the manpower, or the know-how at its ready disposition to take necessary action to protect our marine resources, especially at the remote outpost of our three northernmost islands.


Mr. Gourley's argument: The natural world is a bank and we can tap its resources until it goes bankrupt. It's somehow wrong to deprive us from doing that.

Mr response: We have to protect our environment. We are not depositors into the bank, and we can't keep taking out resources. It (our natural world) will go bankrupt.

We need zones that are completely free from humanity's rapacious appetite. Perhaps another analogy for the National Marine Monument (rather than a bank that won't let anyone withdraw resources) is the DMZ. If we want an end to war, we have to start with peace somewhere. Mr. Gourley would have us fighting with no DMZ, no peace, no place of respite. Our marine life needs a free zone, a respite where it can escape the war against it.


Mr. Gourley argues for on-going "protection" of our marine resources by Wespac and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This essentially means no protection.

NMFS has failed to do its job of protecting marine life in Hawaii waters, See Report on NMFS ; in the Atlantic; See Audobon Society sues; in the Gulf of Mexico, See Red Snapper depeletion, and in the Pacific Northwest NMFS fails alongside Oregon agency .

I previously noted an on-going investigation into allegations against Wespac, another federal agency that has demonstrated its willingness to hear only the commercial fishing industry's voice in the discussion on marine species regulation.

There is no good reason for the public to have confidence in either of these agencies when it comes to protecting our precious marine environment. The public record clearly shows that they are more interested in helping commercial fishing interests than in enforcing laws that ensure the vitality of our limited and dwindling marine life.

The National Marine Monument, with the shift to NOAA, promises a much better chance of real environment conservation.

And that's a good thing.

Add a Comment

Letters to the Editor
Friday, April 11, 2008


Reason 1 why I oppose the PEW (It's Pew Charitable Trust, not PEW.) National Monument. It would be a Marine National Monument.


So there are no misunderstandings about my purpose, I must first start out stating that the following comments are my own personal opinions and I am not representing any organizations. Additionally, I am not being paid nor am I receiving any compensation for writing this letter or subsequent letters to the editor on this topic. But you do have a personal financial stake. You operate a business, Micronesian Environment Services, that benefits from open access to limited natural resources. Must be the humidity. The more protections for those resources, the harder it is for you to "help" your clients get access to our precious natural resources .

My opinion on the NMI Marine National Monument (PEW Monument) being proposed by the PEW Foundation is based on my long-term involvement in the marine science and environmental regulatory fields and my personal belief in supporting sustainable fisheries programs.

As background, I was first introduced to the PEW Monument idea during the Mariana Islands Nature Alliance Strategic Planning Session held on Nov. 17, 2007 at Fiesta Resort. Those in attendance were told by PEW that they had already approached White House staff about the NMI Monument and President Bush was ready to sign the Presidential Proclamation as soon as PEW could show support from the CNMI government and residents. PEW was offering to provide operating expenses to MINA in the form of grants in exchange for their active participation in promoting and selling the PEW Monument idea to the people of the CNMI. The MINA Board declined PEW's generous offer.

I attended a second, more formal PEW presentation on March 26, 2008, where the same concept was presented, complete with a PowerPoint show, colorful glossy handouts and various fact sheets providing general information about the northern islands. And finally, I carefully reviewed the PEW letter to Governor Fitial, dated Dec. 20, 2007, that outlined their proposal to create a very large no-take marine protected area in the Northern Mariana Islands EEZ, and an Internet investigation into both the PEW Foundation and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument (NWHI Monument) controversy. I would like to think that I have done my homework in attempting to fully understand the issues and resulting long term repercussions should President Bush designate over a third of the entire CNMI EEZ (115,000 square miles) as a National Monument.

My wish is to write a series of letters to the editor that will attempt to reveal certain issues that my not be apparent from listening to the polished PEW presentation. My purpose is to provide background information so interested people will be able to ask pertinent questions on issues important to the community. Please remember, the real stakeholders in this environmental political game are the people of the CNMI.

I have serious reservations on all the economic benefits that PEW is touting about the Monument and will address them in later letters. Meanwhile, I hope everyone understands that the PEW Foundation cannot guarantee the CNMI anything. They are simply a Washington DC-based third party expeditor What does this mean? Pew Charitable Trust is based in Philidelphia, PA, not D.C. They are a world-wide CHARITABLE/NON-PROFIT organization. trying to sell the CNMI a product that they themselves will have very little (or nothing) to do with once the Presidential Proclamation has been inked. Who will ultimately pay for the PEW Monument long after the PEW Foundation leaves the CNMI? We will, of course. I believe this is false. The Marine National Monument would be a joint federal and CNMI-managed protected area. The federal government would bear most of the costs. As noted in the letter from Pew Charitable Trust to Governor Fitial: "The economic opportunities created through designation of a large Marianas Trench Marine Monument are real. As the principle federal agency involved, the National Marine Sanctuary Program would undertake a management plan in conjunction with the CNMI government."

With that said, I believe the overall costs (costs are not necessarily limited to money) to the people of the CNMI are too high. Therefore, I completely oppose the PEW NMI Marine National Monument, Mariana Trench Marine Sanctuary, National Park of the Sea, or whatever name PEW is calling it this week. Pew Charitable Trust calls its overall project "Ocean Legacy." The naming of the Marine National Monument in the CNMI would, of course, need NMI input.

REASON 1

Designation of the PEW Monument will permanently ban all commercial, recreational and subsistence fishing activities to U.S. citizens Excuse me-all people, businesses, etc. not just U.S. citizens within Monument boundaries, an area encompassing 115,000 square miles. This will be accomplished by changing the existing resource management structure from that of promoting a sustainable fishery approach to a “no take” approach that prohibits virtually all extractive uses within Monument boundaries. There are reasons to create no-take, protected zones in our oceans. The "existing resource management structure" is, unfortunately, corrupted by the excessive interests of commercial fishing. For example, WESPAC is under investigation for using federal money to lobby state legislatures on behalf of fishing interests. Honolulu Advertiser reports on up-coming GAO investigatin of WESPAC. Even a cursory glance at the recently reported composition of WESPAC's nominated representatives shows a lopsided weighting of community voices on behalf of fishing (commercial, tourist, and gasoline enterprise) interests, with no environmental interests represented. Saipan Tribune 4/15/2008


Based on management measures promulgated by the NWHI Monument, indigenous people will very likely be allowed to fish for sustenance purposes (not to be confused with subsistence fishing which will be outlawed) within Monument waters, provided the (fishing) activity is included as a term or condition on the federal permit that must be first obtained from the National Marine Sanctuary Program (NOAA/NOS), or its regulatory equivalent. Interestingly, Monument regulations require all fish caught in Monument waters to be eaten within the boundaries of the Monument. Oh, and don't forget to turn in your catch report to the Monument management authority on the fish that was eaten!

JUSTIFICATION

Presently, marine resources within the federal waters of the CNMI EEZ (0 to 200 miles) are being jointly managed by two federal resource management entities; the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (Council) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Their approach to resource management is to support sustainable fishing practices in accordance to various federal laws (i.e., Magnuson (Stevens) Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Sustainable Fisheries Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, etc.). Both of these governmental entities also promote and embrace active participation in developing appropriate resource management measures from those who know the resources the best-the stakeholders. One might say "mis-managed." As noted above, the only "stakeholders" invited to the WESPAC table are fishing interests, and not the rest of us. Keep reading.

If the PEW Monument becomes a reality, the existing resource management authorities (i.e., the Council and NMFS) would be replaced immediately with another federal management agency within NOAA: the National Marine Sanctuary Program under the National Ocean Service. In contrast to the existing sustainable management approach, a resource management approach of no extractive uses will be implemented by the National Marine Sanctuary Program. This federal action is permanent and commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishing activities in approximately 115,000 square miles of CNMI waters will become a memory. But the fish will not become a memory--they'll be there for our future generations to see, know, study, appreciate.

In response to the above reality, PEW is quick to point out that indigenous islanders would be allowed to fish in Monument waters, just as the native Hawaiians are allowed to fish in the NWHI Monument. While this is a true statement, it is not telling you the whole story.

Regulations for the NWHI Monument (FR Vol. 71, No. 167; pages 51134-51142) require Monument visitors, including indigenous Hawaiians, to first obtain a federal permit that would allow access to NWHI Monument waters. Permitting is getting a license. It's not a serious hurdle. For example, a permit could be issued for the purpose of practicing various traditional or cultural activities in the NWHI Monument.

In order to fish in Monument waters, one must have fishing activities added to the permit as a term or condition (’404.11(h); page 51139). Sustenance fishing will only be authorized if the activity is “incidental to an activity permitted under this part” (’404.3; page 51137). My understanding is that permits will not be issued to those persons that wish to travel to the Monument for the sole purpose of fishing.

If one actually does receive a permit to sustenance fish, the visitor would be required to eat any fish caught in Monument waters within the Monument boundaries (’404.11e (5)). In simplest terms, no marine resources (i.e., fish and other edible marine life) can be taken from the Monument and distributed to family, friends, or community members back on their home island. And, should you be granted permission to actually eat a fish from the Monument, you will likely be required to submit a catch report to the Monument management authority documenting your eating event (see ’404.11(h); page 51140). There are benefits to requiring fishing permits and reports. They create 1) better data for managing fish populations; 2) a means to give a voice to recreational and cultural fishermen, and not just commercial fishing interests; and 3) possible revenues from licensing, and from any taxes on fishing-related activities. Compare: On requiring licensing under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act.


The permanent ban on commercial fishing activities will detrimentally affect the CNMI's newest commercial fishing business venture that has already invested a substantial sum of money in infrastructure development on Rota and bringing two fishing vessels to the CNMI. The Hawaii National Monument allowed existing commercial enterprises a 5 year time-period to continue fishing in the new National Monument waters, as a means of recouping their investments. The same could be done here. Do we really wnt to scuttle a project that protects our ocean's resources for ALL people, just because of ONE commercial fishing venture? Creation of the PEW Monument will seriously inhibit the development of any future sustainable fishing industries as it will decrease the fishable area within the CNMI EEZ by 33 percent. This will not create a hardship on people of the CNMI. Few individuals or families can afford the cost of gasoline and the time it takes to travel to the three northernmost CNMI islands and fish.

So, what does the PEW Foundation really want? Simply put, they want 33 percent of our EEZ to be designated as a no-take National Monument so they can credit their Ocean Legacy Project for creating another large Marine Monument and help President Bush put another notch on his environmental bedpost to bolster his legacy as the ”Ocean President”. Not really. They want to create a National Marine Monument around the CNMI's three northernmost islands so that we can all protect our ocean's resources and have a beautiful place to visit. Working in concert with the President to designate the PEW Monument in the Mariana Islands before he leaves office is not about science-based conservation, but U.S. mainland politics. How could this help President Bush's politics? He has nothing to gain. It just might be the one time he's figured something out right.

Though it may surprise our paid PEW lobbyist, the opposing forces grow larger and stronger every time a presentation is made. PEW cannot fool everyone with their rhetoric and empty promises. They are not trying to fool anyone. They are holding open sessions, inviting comment, and trying to work together to sustain our environment.

What are you, Mr. Gourley, trying to protect?

1. The existing control by WESPAC, with it's hand-in-hand relationship with commercial fishing.

2. A "sustainable fishing" system, rather than a no-take protected environment system. But we're learning that "sustainable" fishing, with its focus on one species of fish at a time, is wrongly weighted in favor of over-taking and over-fishing, while our environment suffers. There is mounting evidence that the WESPAC -Magnuson-Stevens Act focus of species-by-species protection isn't working, and that a larger, global focus on ocean health would be a better approach. No take zones are important and helpful to environmental protection.

3. Your own interests in offering services to help others use or abuse our limited natural resources.

John Gourley
Navy Hill, Saipan

Display Comments Add a Comment

Governor Benigno R. Fitial and Lt. Governor Timothy Villagomez have announced their intention to seek another term in office.


Their last election's slogan was "BETTER TIMES." Any one who's been living in the CNMI can attest to the failure of that promise. Personally, I'm not sure I can take much more "better times."

On the other hand, the Pew Charitable Trust has a great benefit to offer the CNMI, with a marine sanctuary protecting the waters-i.e. the Marianas Trench-- around three of our northern islands (Maug, Asuncion and Uracas). I've seen programs on PBS sponsored by the Pew Trust. Their web-site shows them to be a well-established and beneficial organization. Their work is designed to help the environment, including all people within it.



How could we get so lucky?

I mean, this is working in Hawaii, at the world's largest marine conservation habitat in the world. In Hawaii, they navigated sticky issues like commerical fishing, with a phase out over time as a concession to fishing interests, an exception for traditional subsistence Hawaiian fishing in recognition of the culture, and an exception for scientific research fish collection. They even got President George W. Bush's full support.

So we could have this happen here! Save our environment. Create a larger scientific community with money and research coming in. Protect our indigenous rights. All funded by the Pew Trust!

Aahh, BUT--- how could we have an Administration foolish enough to turn down this opportunity? What could explain the recent failure of our Administration to even meet with the people from the Pew Trust to hear their proposal? Because this is what's happening now.

Perhaps because the Pew Charitable Trust is an honorable organization? Offering no opportunity for kickbacks? no personal benefits? Am I too cynical? Are there real reasons to completely ignore this type of suggestion?

You can follow the unfolding story at Angelo's blog. The comments at Lil Hammerhead's show some nasty opposition to the proposal, but I'm still waiting for rational, logical dialogue on the merits of the proposal. I'd like to hear about research about current use and objectives/goals for fish conservation from WESPAC. What would the true impact be? As Cinta says here, give Pew a chance. [Her rational approach raises my hope.]

Whatever the relative merits of the proposal, at least we should honestly investigate and discuss it. The President of the U.S. spent more than an hour of his time watching a video and learning about the Hawaiian marine sanctuary project. Is our Governor busier than the President of the U.S.? Are we in the CNMI less deserving of this type of investment so that we must run away from it? Or do we, too, honor our islands, our waters, our people and culture, and welcome others who will help us on such a course?

For me, it's all about real "better times."

Display Comments Add a Comment

The CNMI got a 50cent raise in minimum wage (to $3.55) last July 2007, and is set to have another 50cent raise (to $4.05) this May 26, 2008.

It comes as no surprise that our illustrious governor is trying to put the kibosh on this next incremental raise, and all future scheduled raises (50cents each year through 2015, until we reach $7.25, which will be the minimum wage in the U.S. set for year 2009). He lobbied heavily against the first increase, and effectively insisted on having the minimum wage law include requirements for a study by the Department of Labor on the effect of the raises.

And he is not alone--the representative to the U.S. Congress from American Samoa has introduced a bill to stop the incremental minimum wage increases, which also apply to them.

The U.S. Department of Labor has now issued its report, and the Variety and Tribune have each reported the governor or his spokespeople saying how this report completely vindicates their argument that raising minimum wage in the CNMI is harmful to our economy.

Thanks to Ken Phillips at SOSaipan for a link to the actual report, which I've linked to, also, here.



Ken's comments are also helpful in orienting a reader to the report's "findings."

CNMI Governor Fitial is using the age-old practice of "spin" to argue that the DOL's latest report supports suspension of the minimum wage hike. See, e.g. this Variety news story or this Tribune story.

The spin includes distortions of what the report actually says, what people in the CNMI think about raising minimum wage, and characterization of the report as reaching a conclusion against implementation of the next minimum wage increase.

1. According to the Tribune article, "Increasing the CNMI wage to $7.25 an hour, the report said, is comparable to raising the U.S. minimum wage to $16.50 an hour." NOT TRUE.

First of all, the report actually says "The scheduled increase in the minimum wage to $7.25 (by 2015) will likely affect at least 75 percent of wage and salary workers in the CNMI. By comparison, in order to directly affect 75 percent of U.S. hourly workers, the minimum wage would need to be raised to $16.50, the 75th percentile mark for wage and salary workers who are paid hourly rates."

What this means is that the CNMI has a much larger segment of its working population suffering from the low minimum wage than the U.S. does. In the U.S., minimum wage is truly a "floor" and many workers obviously earn more than the minimum, which is why it would take such a much larger increase to effect 75% of them. This is not an argument AGAINST raising minimum wage here, but only highlights the urgency and desperation of why we need these incremental raises.

Second of all, the report is comparing apples and oranges--or really today and many years hence. The CNMI is not facing a raise to $7.25 this year. We are facing a raise to $4.05 this May. NOTHING in the report tells us what that is comparable to in the U.S.


2. The governor reports a "broad concensus" against raising the minimum wage to the next level here. Jeff Flores has already spoken out here that he disagrees, and doesn't believe people here are uniformly against raising minimum wage.

It's time to show that the Governor is misstating the facts about what the people in the CNMI want. Every worker here who earns minimum wage of $3.55 who is in favor of raising their minimum wage to $4.05 should contact Mr. George Miller or any of the representatives on the House Committee on Education and Labor. Any other person, whether you earn minimum wage or not, who feels it's important to raise the CNMI minimum wage to $4.05 this May, can also express their views to the committee members. You can see the full committee roster here. Or you can just write or call: Democratic Staff, 2181 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202-225-3725).

3. The DOL report includes statements about the past that are informative, but nothing it says about the present effect of the minimum wage here or the likely effect another raise may have is at all reliable. The report itself denies reliability.

It notes that there are many adverse economic factors. In discussing the garment industry, the report says that lack of data make it impossible to distinguish among the various adverse factors as to which are having the greatest impact. (page 31)

Although the report paints a bleak picture and talks about how difficult having a raise in minimum wage is when times are tough, it also suggests that the tourism industry may rebound. If it had applied its own logic to this statement, this might suggest room for absorbing the impact of the minimum wage hike.

But most telling is this: "The CNMI does not yet have in place macroeconomic data collection and accounting-systems technology capable of generating information on total output and its components on a monthly or quarterly basis. As a result, there is not a way to provide objective measures of productive capacity, capacity utilization, employment, wages or unemployment rates...In the absence of complete and accurate macroeconomic data, there is no objective method to guage the level of aggregate economic activity, the level of employment it supports, or other important measures such as total personal income, consumption, savings and other metrics that explain the well-being of the population and the average citizen...The lack of such data are especially a barrier to assessing the current and future impact of the recent and scheduled increases in the minimum wage."

In other words--they're just guessing, and can't say anything objective.

The Governor's spin is nothing but more twist against what is fair and just--a living wage for workers.

Add a Comment

The traffic lights were out in places on the drive to school & work this morning. It was busy. People were not stopping or taking turns. No police were directing traffic at the intersections. It was not the way to start the day.

It seems we will continue to face this problem, as CUC continues to have power problems. I wish the Legislature would address the traffic light issue with a simple law, and the police would enforce it. If a traffic light is out or malfunctioning, it should become and be treated as a stop sign. This slows traffic down--true. But then everyone knowns what to do, and everyone gets a chance to get through intersections, even if they're--heaven forbid--turning left.



Don Farrel's letter in the Variety today-here--is really good. The Governor, Howard Willens, Cinta Kaipat, and possibly Deanne Siemer all seem to be trying very hard to spread misinformation and fear as the means to combat the federalization effort. I know that there are important issues that the US Congress must tackle, but the CNMI needs their attention and an end to the current mess. We are stuck in this quaqmire, the worst of which may be listening to the distortions being thrown about by our current administration. Could we just get on with federalization now, please?


January in Saipan is my favorite month--weather-wise. The moon at night is huge, with a deep field of stars playing back-up. Days are sunny, warm, with a cool breeze coming in. Green and lush, tangerines and star fruit still plentiful. It's a tough life in the tropics, but someone's got to live it. :-)

Add a Comment

Add a Comment

I found this at Boni's deployment blog--Breathe...breathe...hooah...hooah.
The CNMI is second (to American Samoa) in number of casualties per capita in the Iraq War. (Click on post title for link to full list.)

At San Vicente Church, they lit a candle for each person who died in 2007. Death happens, whether we're in the military or not. But for those who die in combat, or otherwise, far away from home, I feel especially sad. Our military persons who are killed in war are mostly young men and women--their lives a heavy price to pay for war.

I'm opposed to the war in Iraq. I think President Bush and America were wrong for starting it, and are wrong for continuing it. And we've made a mess that may take generations for healing and recovery. I would like to see individuals say no to war and refuse to participate in it.

But I sincerely hope and pray for each soldier or other military person who has made a different decision--who has enlisted, who is facing deployment, who is already there, or returned with battle scars (emotional or physical).

May you find peace in 2008. May you return safely to your family. May God bless you.

Add a Comment

This article from HALFWAY DOWN THE DANUBE is interesting to ponder as it discusses the assimilation of Chinese in the Philippines. We have an increasingly diverse population, with more Koreans and Chinese calling the CNMI home than ever before. So it makes sense to look at how our neighbors have assimilated foreign-born residents. We're not the only ones with waves of migrants.

On a similar note: While in Hawaii a few years ago, I went to the public library, which had a whole series of pamphlets in the children's section, entitled things like "Japanese in Hawaii" and "Chinese in Hawaii" and "Portuguese in Hawaii." These each told the story of migration of people from a foreign country into Hawaii, where they came from, the circumstances at the times of migration, and their contributions to Hawaiian life.

I'd like to see our Humanities Council undertake a similar project for the CNMI.

Add a Comment

Add a Comment