How to use this Page

The Saipan Tribune gives a sketchy report about a lawsuit recently filed:

where: the 9th Circuit (this is a court of limited jurisdiction and you can't usually initiate cases there)

Plaintiff: National Chamorro Association of the Mariana Islands/president Glenn H. Manglona. This organization is so well known that no one has heard of it until today's newspaper article came out. (Well, maybe in Rota?)

Represented by/Attorneys/Co Plaintiffs: Robin Hood International Human Rights Legal Defense Fund and Paul Risenhoover. OMG! One federal judge said Paul Risenhoover is "a fraudulent opportunist."

Judge Batts made clear she viewed Mr. Risenhoover, an Oklahoma native who is about 30, as an unsavory character. She described him as a fervent anti-Communist who was deemed to be so unreliable by the Government that it ultimately stopped its dealings with him, fearing he would become a liability at trial....

[S]he said in her opinion that Mr. Risenhoover, who speaks Mandarin Chinese, English and Hebrew and claims to be a law school graduate who has not passed the bar, may have also been involved in other illegal activities, including other illegal organ sales and a fraud scheme on the Internet.

And if all that isn't enough, the lawsuit itself sounds ridiculous. The Trib says the complaint is 200 pages! That's long by any legal standard.

And some highlights to emphasize just how ludicrous this is:

They're also filing in international court on behalf of native Chamorros, Carolinians and Formosans???

The 9th circuit lawsuit apparently challenges whether the US Congress had the authority to enter into the Covenant. (Please read the US Constitution and the power bestowed on Congress regarding foreign affairs, territories, and commerce)

5th and 14th amendment claims for takings violations without compensation /impairment of contracts. (Is there any foreign worker here with a contract under CNMI law that was in effect on 11/28/2009 for a period that would last beyond 11/27/2011? I doubt it. Most CNMI contracts were for one year, some for two. But longer?)

And the lawsuit claims we have a right to cheap foreign labor under CNMI control because otherwise we may not be able to live--the CNRA constitutes a deprivation of the right to life!

What nonsense.

(Of course, Wendy beat me to this, and she has the pleadings available for review. I especially like that they have highlighted portions in yellow, and green, and red, and blue...OMG!)

Add a Comment

I've written another lengthy blog post with legal analysis, this time about the power struggle over umbrella permits, at the Day In Court blog.

I see more fruitless resistance by the Fitial Administration, to the harm of our community, including alien workers, employers, and the rest of us. We're all suffering from the uncertainty. We're all suffering from the wasted precious resources of our local government. We're all suffering from the focus on this problem when so many other issues need our local government's attention.

Add a Comment

I've written an analysis about Jacinta Kaipat's latest ploy to have our CNMI Legislature enact hiring "benchmarks" to "prioritize" hiring U.S. citizens. It's posted at the MLSC blog, DAY IN COURT.

The link to the original Marianas Variety article in that post doesn't work just yet, but I'm trying to get that fixed. (You'd think it would be easy, but alas--computer issues today.)

The federalization of immigration brings with it a host of changes, including the need to change our thinking to equal opportunity, non-discriminatory employment practices. Obviously, some people are having a much harder time letting go of the past than others.

Eventually, though, I think we will have a community that is more self-sufficient than at present. I think we will have more opportunities for better jobs for everyone here. I hope that what foreign workers we have in the future will have rights and jobs that pay for the value of their services. This will all take some committment to free and fair enterprise.

If we build our community on values that embrace equality, freedom, environmental protection, and human dignity, we should be able to surface, breathe, and rescue ourselves from the current precarious, drowning situation we are now in. At least, that's what I hope and believe.

Add a Comment

This excellent comment was buried in one of the threads, and I think it deserves a lot more light of day.

I agree with you Jane regarding the romantisizing of our recent past. I left this island nearly 20 years ago and just recently returned.

I don't even see anything close to the Great Wall or the Pyramids (other than the empty GIG that was once a thriving disco that rivaled anything in the region). The La Fiesta was not dependent on cheap labor and has been empty for years while we had access to cheap labor.

What I did see upon returning has been eye opening and far from anything I would revel in and consider great development and a prosperous economy. I found destroyed reefs and barren lagoons (in comparison to 20+ years ago). I found empty shells of 30 plus garment warehouses. I found empty strip malls. I discovered that around 70% of those I grew up with and went to school out here with no longer live here. They have families elsewhere. I saw that nearly 90% of the waitstaff, front desk clerks, bartenders,etc were guest workers (I was a waiter 25 years ago and my pals were front desk and housekeeping). I noticed that all the Mom and Pop stores that had once been owned by me and my friends Moms and Pops were now owned by foreign investors. Diego's Mart, Pop's Store, Morgans Mini Mart, Carmen Safeway, Tenda Store, Aldan's Gas Station, Farmers Market, etc. Same with the bars and restaurants like Ship Ashore, House of Chang, Chamorro Village, Town & Country, Chamorro House, etc are all replaced with foreign owned businesses. I noticed the streets that used to be filled with Japanese Tourist were now empty. The golf courses designed 20 years ago by Jack Nicolas were now unkempt. The hotels that used to average 90% occupancy now ran at around 50%. The Jets that used to fly between here and Guam are now prop plans. Direct flights to Japan that used to fly in and out 3 times a day down to 2 twice a week.

Where is our great wall? We had none. 30 years ago we could have built something great.

We had geographic edge with Japan only 2 hours away. We had great resorts and golf courses that were maintained and rivaled those in other areas of the pacific. We had relationships with agents and airlines that secured set routes and put us int he position to be the HUB for the Pacific region. We had locally run businesses and local workers at all levels that kept the money in our economy and didn't funnel it all out. We had a solid foundation birthed of the Covenant to maintain all of this and grow to be prosperous.

What happened?

We got greedy and we got led by some terribly short sighted leaders.

Our downfall is not to blamed on federalization of immigration. It is blamed on our own doing. We embraced garment. We spent millions on lobbyist. We exploited foreign labor and used guest workers to replace local labor rather than filling gaps and instead replaced our local workforce. We pulled in foreign businesses at the expense of local entrepreneurship. We doled out public land to foreign investors instead of catering to local investors. Our leaders did this because they could negotiate kickbacks and become middlemen in the schemes. Do land swaps and make millions overnight.

3 days ago the federal government took control of immigration in the CNMI; 27 years ago we destroyed this economy.

December 1, 2009 2:11 PM

I like this comment, not because it starts out by agreeing with me, but because of the specifics. It makes me sad, though, to contemplate the lost opportunities. Still hoping that--yes, we can--make it right.

Display Comments Add a Comment

It's almost the end of the day. I've been out and about--to the post office, the store, Garapan, now Java Joe's.

Nothing seems any different.

The world did not end with the federalization of the CNMI's immigration. The world did not magically improve either.

We'll have to wait and see how things develop over the next few years. This will be a slow process.

Display Comments Add a Comment

We can send Howard Willens to Washington, D.C. the minute we hear that the Court has dismissed the initial 2 counts of the case fighting federalization of our CNMI immigration.

But we are helpless to obtain printer ribbon to issue permits to the people here trying to renew their entry permits.

For about 2 weeks now, our office has been hearing how CNMI Immigration doesn't yet have the renewal permits ready because they're still waiting on printer ribbon. Yeah. Right.

Display Comments Add a Comment

1. Fitial is being re-elected Governor of the CNMI. He's ahead by 500+ votes, and it seems unlikely (although not impossible) that the absentee ballots will change the outcome of the run-off election.

My previous post on the elections included these:
2009-11-02 The candidates
2009-11-19 On the Spoils System


2. Fitial's lawsuit has been dismissed. It challenged the federalization of the CNMI's immigration, claiming the Consolidated Natural Resources Act violated the Covenant by infringing the CNMI's right of self-government.

Some of my previous posts on this subject, including analysis of the merits of the lawsuit, are here:
2008-12-17 A brief recap of the pending motions
2009-03-11 On the amicus brief


I want to say bad news (Fitial's re-election), good news (dismissal of the federalization lawsuit), but I am reminded of the Chinese story about tao.

What I see as good is that we had an election and we will have a Governor chosen by more than 50% of the people.

What I see as good is that we have a system of justice where anyone can make their claim and have a judge review it, based on written laws and principles.

Who knows? Perhaps it will take 5 more years of Benigno Fitial for us to learn a bit more about the spoils system and what its harms are.

We will have the same 5 years in transition to U.S. immigration. We'll see how it unfolds.

Add a Comment

There's been a lot of talk about umbrella permits, and lots of flak in the newspapers and on blogs. Opinions vary.

I want to weigh in on the subject. I want to be intelligent and perceptive about it. But it is impossible to do so because the legal basis for the "news" and the full terms of the Umbrella Permits are still a work-in-progress.

There is a CNMI "protocol" written by Howard Willens. I do not think this protocol has the force and effect of law; it is more like a guide or roadmap to help everyone understand how the CNMI administration is proceeding as to the transition to federal immigration.

The protocol, available at the CNMI Department of Labor's site does not mention the term "umbrella permit." Each of the immigration entry classifications is described, and a catch-all "other categories" classification is also included. None of these match up with the description of the "umbrella permit" as given so far verbally by Deanne Siemer.

And there is the whole question about Labor issuing permits that have any effect as entry permits.

I am studying it all. I am also awaiting the regs or whatever it is Attorney General Ed Buckingham is working on.

And I will have opinions, as well as analysis.

But I'm not going to give an opinion on the hot air that has been blowing all over Saipan. It means nothing.

Let's wait for the fine print. Then we'll have something to talk about.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Interested in the testimony presented at the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife--that's a subcommittee of the Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives? This is the hearing on the impact and progress of federalizing the CNMI's immigration pursuant to P.L. 110-229.

While we wait for Wendy to report at Unheard No More, here's something to read:
GAO testimony about its position: Coordinated Federal Decisions and Additional Data are Needed to Manage Potential Economic Impact of Applying U.S. Immigration Law.

The chart on the first page of the attachment to the testimony is a good graphic summary of P.L. 110-229.

You can also get the full sense of the flow of the hearing by this listing of witnesses: subcommittee panel listing and by watching a video of the hearing, also at this link.

Thanks to Dan MacMeekin.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Did any one else find this bit in yesterday's Saipan Tribune ironic?

The governor said the Subcommittee and the people of the Commonwealth are entitled to know exactly how much Fiscal Year 2009 funding has been spent to prepare for the implementation of federalization, how much more will be expended in the remaining months of FY 2009, and whether DHS is depending in part on funding being sought for FY 2010, “buried somewhere in the Department's request for $55.1 billion.”

Governor Fitial HAS been listening to Tina Sablan, after all! While he denies that the people of the CNMI have a right to know what our CNMI government is spending to fight federalization, he is insisting we have a right to know how much the US government is spending to implement it.

Hahaha!

I think we have a right to know about all of it--both the CNMI and US expenditures.

Judge Wiseman is moving cautiously, but he is moving the Open Government Act case toward final resolution.

No more delays!

Display Comments Add a Comment

I've met a lot of federal officials over the past two days.

Marine Monument


Some top officials from Fish & Wildlife are here about the Marine Monument--Barbara Maxfield, Barry Stieglitz, Donald Palawski; and also from NOAA--William Robinson. They are meeting with local government officials and conducting their first field review about the national marine monument, designated in January 2009 by then-President Bush.

They have the words of the proclamation and of the designation of DFW as lead agency, but apparently a lot of the groundwork, fieldwork, and framework from the process leading up to the designation has been lost by the change in Presidential administrations.

Here's what I understood would be two of the first agenda items for the Monument management:

1) fishing regulations, which are on the agenda for the next Wespac meeting scheduled for March 17-19, 23-25, 2009 in PagoPago, American Samoa; and

2) NEPA--environmental impact statements. There is a lot of groundwork that goes into one of these; and apparently DFW is looking to get started on the baseline fundamentals. (Lauri, Angelo--please correct me if I got this wrong...)

There is no fixed timeline, but some targeted dates:

4/11/2009--advisory council in place. This date is based on the proclamation language "within 3 months of the date of this proclamation." It is unlikely that this date will be met since the appointment is by the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior, and right now we don't yet have a Secretary of Commerce, although President Obama has nominated Gary Locke.

Governor Fitial's selections may not qualify, either, as the proclamation requires that the advisors be members of the local government.

8/2010--I think this was the target date for draft regulations, with the hope that they would be in place by 12/2010.

2011--Monument included in 2011 budget. It seems to be already too late to include the monument in the 2010 budget. It may be too late for the 2011 budget...

2013--full operation of Monument.



USCIS Application Support Center




Today marked the official opening of the US Citizenship and Immigration Service's Application Support Center in Saipan. This is part of the operation to federalize immigration here.

Present for the ceremony were Michael Aytes--Acting Deputy Director of USCIS, Carolyn Muzyka--Regional Director of the Western Region of USCIS, David Gulick--District Director headquartered in Honolulu, HI, and Walter Haith--Field Office Director from Guam. Other dignitaries came as well, including TSA official (Michael Connolly?), federal Court Judge Munson, DOI representative Jeff Schorr, and CNMI dignitaries including Governor Benigno Fitial, Mayor Juan B. Tudela, and Immigration Chief Mel Grey.

The ASC office is open and has the capacity to do "biometrics"--meaning fingerprinting, photographing, and getting electronic signatures. The staff gave a quick demonstration of how they do these. They have already been doing these things since 3/2/2009, but there is a small snafu for those applying for green cards. Right now USCIS still reads the various laws as requiring "admission upon inspection" and therefore says applicants must still travel to Guam. They are looking into the possibility of changing that, and will change it for sure on the start date of the federalization/transition.

There is some strong speculation that the start date will be delayed and that federalization will not start on June 1, 2009. It can be delayed as much as six months (to 12/1/2009), but could also be delayed for a shorter period of time.

The problem from the USCIS point-of-view seems to be that regulations are not in place, and the time for getting them in place is running out. USCIS does not want to start operation without regulations already in place. Given that regs usually need a 60 day comment period and then republication in adopted form, and we only have about 82 days from now before June 1, 2009, it seems like the time is too limited for a prompt start.

The USCIS officials present were an interesting mix of diplomat and bureaucrat. They got in their soundbites--about being a service provider, about wanting to do things right, about being available and open for comment and information, but they also didn't answer some direct questions, like whether there would be a delay in the start-up date. They expressly denied that there would be any amnesty by the agency, although they acknowledged that Congress could move in that direction.

They also have a policy man in the Saipan office--Fred Ongcapin--who is here to get a better grasp of some of the trickier issues and then go back to Washington and work on them.

All in all, the prospects from today's events seemed hopeful.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Here's what the CNMI says in its latest filing in Governor Fitial's federalization lawsuit:

Finally, many of these lawfully admitted workers have resided in the CNMI fo ryears, and have U.S. citizen children or spouses entitled to stay in the CNMI. The CNMI has the right to protect the integrity of its social fabric and protect these individuals, who have committed no crimes, from removal as "illegal entrants."

And here's what he said when he opposed giving them permanent status through the federalization bill he now challenges:

In a significant departure from current immigration policy, H.R. 3079 declares which non-U.S. citizens will be given permanent legal status and permitted to stay in the CNMI or move to any part of the United States. H.R.3079 expressly grants a form of amnesty to nearly 8000 alien workers in the Commonwealth by granting them this nonimmigrant status, comparable to that enjoyed by Micronesians from the freely associated states. The bill's drafters chose to ignore that such an enhanced status was not permitted or contemplated when these workers elected voluntarily to come to the CNMI many years ago to enjoy the economic opportunities available in the CNMI.

The drafters of H.R. 3079 seemingly have no concern about the impact of this provision on the integrity and vitality of the indigenous Carolinian and Chamorro peoples in the Commonwealth. Permanent legal residence status permits such individuals to bring children and other relatives into the community where the status-holder elects to live. Consequently, the impact on the local CNMI community might be far greater than anticipated if most of these new permanent legal residents elected to stay in the Commonwealth and bring in children and other relatives not presently allowed to reside in the CNMI. However well-intentioned this proposal appeared to its drafters, its consequences already have seriously affected the quality of life in the CNMI. The proposal has generated unrealistic expectations among the guest worker population in the Commonwealth, stimulated boycotts of businesses because their owners have opposed this provision, and contributed to increased divisiveness between guest workers and the indigenous peoples of the Commonwealth. We recommend that the provision be eliminated from H.R.3079.

Originally, the CNMI was given control over immigration because it was thought that the CNMI would want to keep the number of alien workers lower than would be allowed by US immigration, as a means of protecting the small, indigenous populations' cultures and social fabric.

But the CNMI decided a better way was to bring in lots of foreign workers and just keep them powerless.

So, we want alien workers, but we don't want them to have rights to permanent residency, and we especially don't want them to have any political power. But trust the CNMI to be the one to protect them?

Exactly what kind of protection does the Governor have in mind?

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

The latest 9th Circuit case, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. vs. Napolitano is very interesting in light of our CNMI Governor's lawsuit against the U.S.

In the CPLC case, the Arizona Legislature passed a licensing law that revokes licenses of businesses that hire illegal aliens. The law requires that Arizona employers verify employment on-line using the federal website system.

The 9th Circuit said that federal immigration law pre-empts state law as to sanctions for recruiting and hiring illegal aliens, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. sec. 1324a(h)(2), except that states retain rights over licensing and similar matters.

In this case, the 9th Circuit held that the state law that requires revoking the license of a business for employing illegal aliens is within the state's rights, and not pre-empted. It held that the state could require employers, for its state licensing, to use the federal employee-status verification system. It cautioned that its holding was limited to the facial challenge, and indicated that when the law is actually implemented, it could be subject to challenges as applied.

I find this interesting because one of the claims raised in the lawsuit by Governor Fitial is that P.L. 110-229 pre-empts our local "labor" laws. Federal immigration laws directly impose limits on recruitment and hiring of foreign workers. Clearly, under federal immigration law, federal immigration measures are permitted to pre-empt even states' laws (in some instances and to some degree), except for local concerns like business licensing.

The Fitial administration, in its complaint, likened States' rights under the U.S. Constitution (Articles 1 and 10) to our local self-government over internal affairs under the Covenant, but that doesn't seem to bolster the claim that application of federal immigration laws here violates those self-government rights.

This case is a 9th circuit decision; and the Administration's suit against federalization is filed in the Washington, D.C. district court, part of the 2nd Circuit, I think. So this case isn't binding precedent, but it's still informative of how the federal courts view the relationship of U.S. immigration law to state's rights and laws.

In my opinion, it doesn't seem to lend any support to the Fitial lawsuit challenging federalization of our immigration here.

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

Thanks to Wendy's link directly to the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, I've been reading up on the CNMI's lawsuit against the U.S. The case seeks to stop implementation of P.L. 110-229 in the CNMI.

It is assigned to Judge Paul L. Friedman, who, interestingly enough, has had a small part in the Abramoff litigation.

The complaint is signed by David W. DeBruin of Jenner & Block, with William M. Hohengarten and Sharmila Sohoni, also of Jenner & Block listed as additional counsel.
Howard P. Willens is listed as "Special Legal Counsel to the Governor."

I've been trying to understand both the factual and legal claims, as well as the "vision" that the Fitial Administration has for economic recovery of the CNMI, which is ostensibly the motivation behind this lawsuit.





SOME BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
There are some basic assumptions that act as the underpinnings for the factual and legal claims. These are not typically stated overtly, but are embedded in the rhetoric of the complaint. In my opinion, none of these assumptions are true.

1. The CNMI cannot be self-sufficient. It must exploit the availability of cheap, foreign workers in order to maintain its economy. In fact, in the CNMI "labor" means foreign labor.

The complaint does not identify new and viable future economic development for the CNMI. It claims that federalization will harm any chance at recovery, but the complaint simply looks to the past to describe those economic prospects.

The complaint mentions both the tourism sector and the garment industry. It first complains at paragraph 32 of economic limitations imposed by the Trust Territory government; and then touts the CNMI past under its new control as a model of good economic management and development. At paragraph 41, speaking of the past, the complaint says "The Commonwealth also began systematic efforts to encourage foreign investment in the visitor industry and to bring tourists to the islands in substantial numbers...These efforts were successful." It then describes some of the setbacks from the Asian economic crisis, the SARS outbreak, the terrorist attack of 9/11, and even the pull-out of the garment industry after rule changes by the WTO.

Then it makes this startling statement:

"The Commonwealth's economy can be resuscitated only through a renewed influx of foreign investment and the presence of a stable workforce able to support construction and new economic development."

When it speaks of labor, it means only foreign labor. It complains at paragraph 70 that the federalization of immigration will "pre-empt" CNMI labor laws. Inherent in this statement is the assumption that we have no labor laws that apply to the local work force, that all our labor laws relate to foreign workers, because the federalization of immigration does not change anything as to local workers.

According to the administration, we must turn back the hands of time. We must be allowed to do again what we did before. This is the program Governor Fitial suggests as the road to economic recovery.

This approach ignores that the past policies resulted in only short-term benefits that made some (like the Governor) rich, but did not provide sustained economic growth for the CNMI, and led to our current predicament.


2. The CNMI has a right to depend on foreign workers for its economy.

The complaint makes the following unequivocal statement: "The Commonwealth cannot grow its workforce by attracting American labor." Implicit throughout the complaint is the insistent whine that the CNMI MUST HAVE foreign workers in order to have an economy. It is reminiscent of the argument of white plantation owners in the South who insisted they needed slavery in order to have an agricultural economy, and thus argued that slavery should be allowed.

Could we have a prosperous economy from our own sweat? Hidden in the text of the complaint is the information that the local population/U.S. citizen base has doubled since the Covenant went into effect. One obvious option that the Commonwealth could use to grow its workforce would be encouraging a business climate that keeps its local workers happy so they don't migrate to the U.S.

Furthermore, we live in a mobile world; if the CNMI truly becomes part of the American economic community, then there is no reason to believe that American labor will not be attracted to employment opportunities.

As it is now, though, the underlying assumption of the complaint shows the current administration wants to keep the third-world status of our economy, keep us depending on cheap foreign labor, easily exploited and without civil rights.

In addition to the subtle, unstated bigotry in the rhetoric of the CNMI's right to have cheap foreign labor to ensure its own wealth, there is an express element of racism in the complaint. At paragraph 48, it reads: "American workers also may be deterred from moving to the Commonwealth by the Commonwealth's unique culture, its ethnic and demographic makeup, and the higher cost of living. To an ordinary American worker, moving to the Commonwealth will feel more like moving to a foreign country than moving from one part of the mainland to another."

First of all, it suggests that "American workers" are not Chamorros and Carolinians. U.S. citizenship makes one an American, but the repeated phrasing in the complaint about American workers seems to refer only to U.S. citizens coming from the mainland U.S. It ignores the American status of those living here. It ignores the great diversity that exists among Americans from Guam, Hawaii, Alaska and the contiguous 48 states.


3. The use of foreign workers in the CNMI is not an immigration matter but a labor matter; the entry and departure of foreign workers into the CNMI and use of them for labor is a "local" matter only.

There is a repeated refrain in the complaint that our Covenant guarantees our right to local self government over internal matters, and that regulating our use of foreign workers falls within the ambit of this protection. At paragraph 61, the complaint alleges that, by regulating the admission of foreign workers to the CNMI for employment, the law "preempts local labor laws."

"No other community in the United States is subject to such massive federal intrusion into matters of local concern."

It seems obviously wrong to say that contracting for services of citizens of foreign countries is a "local" activity. It definitely involves international communication and commerce. It involves working with foreign governments. It effects the American image in foreign ports.

And it seems obviously wrong to say that no other community in the U.S. is subject to such "federal intrusion" when in fact EVERY community in the U.S. is subject to the same U.S. immigration control!


4. The CNMI has already addressed abuses of foreign workers that caused the U.S. Congress' concern with immigration, and there are no longer any problems.

The complaint says at Paragraph 2 that "To address issues that had existed in the past, local CNMI labor laws currently provide extensive protections for these foreign workers while they are employed in the Commonwealth."

There are two parts to this assumption. One that the CNMI has better protections for foreign workers in place now and so Congress made a mistake in its reasons for federalizing immigration now.

And two, that our wonderful our new law provides primary preference in employment for citizens and permanent residents, and this will address the issue of building a better local base for the economy. (Paragraph 54.)

Neither of these tally with reality.

The CNMI has always had some form of protection on the books for non-resident workers. The CNMI law has always had a preference for local hires. It fails to mention that there is nothing to suggest that the CNMI will be any better at enforcing the protections or preference now than before. And it ignores the real problem--that the assumption that we MUST have foreign workers to have an economy will always undermine development of our own talent pool.

5. The U.S. taking away the CNMI's cheap foreign labor market fundamentally violates the Covenant relationship between the CNMI and the U.S.

We are addicted to cheap foreign labor. The U.S. federal government is taking away our drug. This changes our relationship to the U.S. It requires us to grow up and act responsibly--on our own, with an economy built on our community resources.

We want our drug.

Did the Covenant build in a right for the CNMI to be addicted to cheap foreign labor? Are we entitled to have slaves?

The complaint calls the U.S.'s federalization of immigration "paternalistic" and claims that there was no call for the U.S. to intervene. But shortly after that it alleges that the U.S. must help the CNMI with its economy under the terms of the Covenant.

The Covenant says that the U.S. will help the CNMI join the American economy:

"the Government of the United States will assist the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands in its efforts to achieve a progressively higher standard of living for its people as part of the American economic community and to develop the economic resources needed to meet the financial responsibilities of local self-government."

The complaint alleges that this section 701 of the Covenant means that we are entitled to our drug-cheap foreign labor, and the U.S. has to help us get it and keep access to it.

But I read this very differently. To me this says the CNMI will become part of the U.S. American economic community--and that means following the same kinds of rules and recognizing the same kinds of rights that workers must have.

To me, the development of economic resources means OUR OWN economic resources, not exploitation of the teeming hordes of impoverished Asia. And local self-government means governing ourselves about matters that are ONLY local concern--not involving interstate or global commerce, or other matters of larger scope.

In the next installment, I'll ruminate on some other aspects of the complaint--obvious omissions, more contradictions, and the legal claims.

Display Comments 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

We've been waiting and waiting and waiting for federal action on bills to federalize immigration in the CNMI. Finally the shoe has dropped.

Head on over to UNHEARD NO MORE for some great posts and details about the passage of the U.S. Senate bill (S. 2739) that federalizes immigration in the CNMI.

Then head over to The Daily Kos for the latest on the Jack Abramoff scandal, which again relates to activities "on behalf of" the NMI.

Display Comments 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

I rarely agree with Anthony Pellegrino. I've gotten to the point where I usually read the first paragraph of his columns or letters and move on. So I'm surprised to read his column today and find that I agree with all of it.

I was here before the Covenant became "fully" effective, when people in the CNMI were "interim U.S. citizens." The choice to become U.S. citizens and have a Commonwealth in political union with and "under the sovereignty of" the U.S. was still being embraced as a great deal, the right choice, a happy beginning to a new era.

As with all new ventures, when the honeymoon is over, reality seems worse than it really is. We've learned that "local self-government" is not the same as total control and sovereignty. We've come up against some demands and limitations that some among us don't like. But we don't need rose-colored glasses to appreciate the benefits that come from being a Commonwealth in political union with the U.S.

A benefit Tony forgot to mention: our U.S. citizens here can move freely to the U.S. and live, work, attend school and participate fully in life (including voting). While our neighbors from the FSM, Palau and Marshall Islands can live and work in the U.S., they cannot vote, cannot have a voice, and are perpetual "guests."

BTW, our U.S. passports are dark blue, not black, I think. Whatever the color, though, the benefits that go with our citizenship are enormous--not just sharing in the fiscal pie, but having a set of rights that include freedom of press and freedom of religion and other rights that some nearby neighbors in Asia do not enjoy. And with those benefits come some responsibilities--not too onerous, not back-breaking, spirit-sucking responsibilities, just ones that include a bit of respect as we question authority, a bit of recognition for all that we've got as we decide whether to reach for more or share the wealth, and a little effort to live up to the promise of our constitutional freedom.

Add a Comment

The governor has called on Pete A. to retract his support for federalization of the CNMI immigration. I say--Pete A.--right on.

My very first blog post was about the minimum wage and federalization. I tackled both issues, which are related, like two sides of the same coin.

Since I wrote that blog post, we've gotten a small minimum wage increase of $.50 per hour, so our workers now earn $3.55. Next year, the U.S. law provides that there will be another $.50 increase here, unless forces against it manage to interrupt the law's application (always a possibility). Meanwhile the U.S. got a bigger minimum wage increase, so the gap between job pay here and in the U.S. continues to widen. I'm not happy with the minimum wage increase--I think it was too small and spread out over too much time. And it was designed to give ammunition to those who will say how raising the wages has caused businesses to fold, hurting the economy, without any appreciable increase in benefits. Well, consumer spending can hardly go up with such a small-scale increase. I think this wage increase was designed to fail, not succeed. As I said, I'm not happy.

Federalization of our immigration was on track, too, but seems to be getting derailed. I am very proud of Pete A. for sticking to his guns about what the people here really want. I WANT FEDERALIZATION NOW.

The CNMI has lost its ability to take care of immigration. We have a huge backlog of cases awaiting hearings or decisions. We're seeing human trafficking-foreign women tricked into accepting jobs where they are locked up except when they're dancing nude and serving ladies drinks. We have aliens murdered in the CNMI and a DPS that is over-taxed and unable to solve the murders.

We need help.

I'm tired of hearing U.S. citizen spouses threaten their alien spouse with divorce and automatic deportation as a means of family control and domination. Our laws don't call for any requirement of people getting married to provide for permanent residence for their spouses.

I'm disgusted that we have an alien here who applied for refugee protection and who is still waiting for a decision more than a year after having a hearing. You know--justice delayed is justice denied.

I find it frustrating that we have difficulty addressing human trafficking because of the problems with the fit between U.S. law and CNMI's immigration role.

We don't need control of immigration to be "self-governing." We elect our leaders. Our congressmen make our local laws. We can participate in a federal system, where the federal government handles issues of national concern like foreign relations and immigration and the local government handles issues of local concern like crime and public services. There's nothing demeaning about such a federal system.

The CNMI doesn't have enough money. Our CUC is in a sorry state. Our public schools are understaffed and under-funded. We don't have enough money for doctors and blood and all that we need for health care. Our police officers are underpaid and overworked. Our roads need fixing. We can't even take care of the stray dog population or copper wire thefts. Why do we want to keep pouring our CNMI dollars into an immigration system that only benefits a few businessmen and exploits other human beings? Why do we want to embrace a system that has forced our U.S. citizen population to head to the mainland in droves so they can get decent jobs rather than compete here against unlimited numbers of aliens willing to take the pittance offered as a salary?

We need federalization of our immigration. We need it now. Actually, we needed it yesterday, last month, last year, last century. But we still need it--NOW.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Angelo has another thought-provoking post at his blog, this time on the Filippino Consul General's argument against the boycott of Herman's Bakery. Shut-UpPinoys


Here's my own take on the matter.

The background
Herman's Bakery is the business run by a family corporation, headed by Juan Tenorio Guerrero, a/k/a Juan Pan. Other Juan Pan businesses include Western Union and MITA travel.

Juan T. Guerrero (Juan Pan) has been president of the Chamber of Commerce, head honcho of the Red Cross, a former Congressman in the CNMI Legislature, Executive of the year, and an otherwise well-recognized and respected community leader in CNMI and Guam. Herman'sHistory

But he's taken a stance against federalization , and opposed the wage hike as well. In fact he said these would be a disaster for the CNMI. PanPredictsDisaster


The call to action
For his opposition to the rights of workers, especially the alien workers, and his opposition to possible improvement in the CNMI through federalization, now there is a call for action against his businesses. A boycott. A boycott of Herman's Bakery products (which are available retail, but also used at KFC and other places), his Western Union business, MITA and any other Juan Pan business.

The call is being sent around by text messaging. (Love technology!) And it's making some waves, getting a little press coverage and prompting a call to Juan Pan himself, while he was in D.C. talking about how the CNMI doesn't need U.S. takeover of immigration and labor.


Juan Pan's response
Juan Pan, when learning of the call for the boycott, tried to paint himself as only a messenger. He said that he is just delivering the message of the Chamber of Commerce because he is its president. And that he has a right to express his own opinions, too. Don'tShootTheMessenger

What? This is a ridiculous response.

Juan Pan fully supports the Chamber's position against federalization. He's been a mover and shaker in the CNMI's effort to stop federalization, speaking out on it, predicting disaster, joining in the meetings. If he had serious qualms about the Chamber's latest position, he could have argued against it at some point. He could have begged off being the "messenger" and let someone else deliver the Chamber's position. His decision to be the one to testify is evidence of his commitment to the opposition to federalization.

And then there's the Chamber's position against grand-fathering in long-term residents. They want to say that all the years people have lived in the CNMI as alien workers doesn't count. That everybody starts over, starts on the date of the new law, assuming one is passed.

And this position, against grandfathering in our long-time resident aliens, is just nasty. Immoral. Cowardice.


the RP Consul General's mistake
The RP Consul General urged everyone to ignore the boycott because it would hurt the workers employed by Juan Pan. It's a "pressure tactic" and that makes it blackmail. And so it would be wrong.

But if you employ that logic, it would mean we could never protest anything. The Boston Tea Party (which is one of the most outrageous acts of vandalism and theft to ever be perpetrated in the name of a cause) would be reduced to nothing more than a crime, not an eloquent demand for freedom. The Emancipation Proclamation and the entire Civil War, fighting against slavery, would be wrong because slave-owners would react, and those poor slaves would have no homes, no place to work, nothing--but freedom. The Resistance against Hitler would be wrong, because trying to undermine his power and pressure him into not torturing and killing Jews would be-well, blackmail. And the German law could be used against your family and other innocents.

Obviously, the RP Consul General's argument is baloney.

Boycott--it's not wrong, it's a right.
There is nothing wrong with concerted effort to boycott. It's a tactic that recognizes how economic endeavors are intertwined with the political. And when you can't make direct progress on the political front, you need to refocus on the economic. There have been some successful boycotts. BoycottPepsiforBurma , TheMontgomeryBusBoycott , and the original boycott, aimed at landreform in Ireland.

So, if you support federalization, the wage hike, and recognition of aliens' long-term residence in the CNMI as a basis for rights, then boycott the Juan Pan businesses.

As for me, I support those things. I'm not a big fan of the U.S. and its handling of immigration at all, but I've come to the conclusion that the CNMI can't make things better on its own because our leaders are all like Juan Pan--getting rich from cheap foreign labor, and thus forgetting the higher moral values in support of equality and liberty, living wages for all and an end to poverty, justice and universal brotherhood that they had instilled by their faith, by their community, and just by living.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Or a redux of my post #35.

Go listen to the radio broadcast of the Kojo Nnamdi show. You'll hear an interesting analysis about the similarities and differences of the territories.

Of course, I listened most closely for discussion of the CNMI. David Cohen sounds like a big fan of us. He says there's been tremendous progress since Congressman Miller's visit in the 90's.

I hadn't noticed such progress. I wonder if I'm blinded by my daily life here, or if Mr. Cohen is overstating the case.

I am very disheartened by the trafficking cases involving the Red Heart and Starlight/Stardust clubs. The harm to the women brought to those businesses sounds very much like the old cases involving the Kim Chee Cabana and Mr. Oh's nightclub from the early 1980's!

But D.C. is getting a reminder that there are territories besides them, that we have rights and needs, that we contribute but aren't perfect, and that some of the interesting issues in Congress at present involve us.

This is worth the listen.

Display Comments Add a Comment

I just received this information and thought it worth passing along:

The Kojo Nnamdi ShowTuesday, Feb. 27, 2007 12:06 PM EST http://www.wamu.org/programs/kn/07/02/27.php#12962
Join the show: 1-800-433-8850 ([email protected])

U.S. Territories & Politics: Some were acquired through war, others were purchased nearly a century ago. But each of the U.S. territories has a unique relationship with our government and economic system. From Guam to Puerto Rico, we'll look at the hot-button political, labor and military issues facing the territories today. GuestsJeffrey Farrow, Former co-chair of the President's Interagency Group on Puerto Rico, 1994 to 2001; Staff director of the House subcommittee on territories, 1982 to 1994.David Cohen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Insular Affairs, U.S. Department of the InteriorRep. Madeleine Bordallo, Delegate, U.S. House of Representatives (D-Guam)Rep. Donna Christian-Christensen, Delegate, U.S. House of Representatives (D-U.S. Virgin Islands)[Show archives will be available approximately one hour after the program ends.]


Thanks to Dan MacMeekin.

Add a Comment

I second this opinion.

LetterToTheEditor

I wouldn't put my words in all caps to make my points--it isn't necessary. And I'd note that Lauri Ogumoro is not the director of Karidat, she's the head of their shelter and Angie Guerrero is the director. Other than these small quibbles, I completely agree with Jim Ross's assessment and share his sentiments.

I'd also emphasize that the women testifying for Karidat declined the offer from the Department of Interior to pay their expenses connected with the trip to D.C. to testify. I wish everyone would be so ethical.

You can read Lauri's testimony here. OgumoroTestimony

You can find a listing of who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee, with links to their comments, here. U.S.SenateCommitteeOnEnergy

Bishop Camacho and the contingent who represented him at the hearings testified well and presented the community's input--we're ready for change. Our Lieutenant Governor and representative from the Chamber of Commerce spoke for their private interests, regardless of what the people want.

I hope the U.S. Senate gets the people's message.

Display Comments Add a Comment