A Minority Report....

That's just the title I could think of. Perhaps Tom Cruise's film [of the same title] was on my mind...

Oh well, what do you think of the counter report that the CNMI government is now scrambling to produce in order to provide a separate report on the veracity and credibility of the Federal Ombudsman's Office Report on the 20,000 migrant workers present in the islands?

Saipan Tribune reports:

"The Fitial administration has concerns about the data gathered by the Federal Labor Ombudsman, as well as the survey of only 10 Saipan Chamber of Commerce members to decide the fate of the CNMI economy, among other things.

“There are two main issues here-Interior's failure to meet the consultation requirement, and the credibility of data used to determine the future of the Commonwealth. One of the major tasks is to identify the potential impacts on the economy of these decisions...."

While the 20,000 legal aliens in the CNMI firmly clasp their hands in utter hope that they will finally be given permanent status in the CNMI or US citizenship, the rest of us can't help but think that this will be once again an uphill battle.

As the old adage goes appropriate for the islands, "Patience is indeed a vir-chew..."

US Justice Department Mocks Anti-Federalization Lawsuit

The U.S. Justice Department has moved to dismiss Governor Fitial's anti-federalization lawsuit against the Federal Government.

Justice cited several reasons why the case should be dismissed. For example, Justice asserted that only the CNMI Attorney General can bring such an action on behalf of the CNMI. This suit was filed without the involvement of the Attorney General, with Howard Willens listed as the CNMI's attorney.

Justice also noted that the damages the Governor claims will occur as a result of federalization are speculative, based largely on a GAO study that contains numerous disclaimers stating that the report has no predictive value whatsoever. As we all know, the CNMI's current economic troubles began quite some time ago, and federalization has not even gone into effect yet.

The Governor has asserted that he has no objection to the Federal Government taking control of CNMI immigration law, as clearly allowed by the Covenant. Fitial and Willens assert, however, that the new federalization law also takes control over CNMI labor law because it would impact the number of foreigners who could work in the CNMI. According to Justice, this argument makes no sense, and reflects a fundamental failure to understand U.S. immigration law: "Laws pertaining to whether aliens are authorized to be present in the United States and, if so, whether they are authorized to be employed in the U.S. labor markets, is exclusively the subject of federal immigration law," according to Justice. "U.S. immigration laws affect labor markets. That is one of their primary purposes, but it does not make them 'labor laws.'"

As others have pointed out, no community in the U.S. gets to decide how many foreign workers will be admitted to work in that community. That is controlled entirely by U.S. immigration law.

Clearly, the Justice Department is not impressed with Howard Willens' legal arguments. Might even opponents of federalization concede that this lawsuit is a waste of the CNMI's scarce fiscal resources?

Yet another 'welcome rally' for the feds: Give us green card!

The rain didn't dampen the spirit of these guest workers who patiently waited for the US congressional team to pass by the American Memorial Park on their way to Hyatt Regency Saipan on Sunday afternoon.

Their patience paid off when the congressional team waved at them. The visitors are set to meet with the workers on Monday.





The Coalition of United Workers, sadly, has been having leadership issues of late.

Irene Tantiado, who has been one of the founding members and president, stepped down recently because of clashes with other leaders.

Just when the immigration regulations are being drafted and the workers' sentiments are being considered by visiting federal officials, here comes the issue of disunity among guest workers.

But Irene was at the peaceful assembly on Sunday, and vowed to continue advancing the cause of guest workers.

"Fitial mischaracterizes GAO report...."

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued its report on the economic impact of the federalization of the CNMI's immigration laws. The bottom line is that the impact will depend on how the feds (specifically, the Executive Branch) implement the law, and that the feds will need additional data to guide them properly. The Variety news account of the report, under the headline "GAO Downplays Fitial's Economic Disaster Scenario," can be found here.

One thing GAO makes clear is that the Fitial administration has mischaracterized what the report says: "By focusing on one of several scenarios developed for illustrative purposes rather than the full range of scenarios included in our report, the CNMI government comments...inaccurately stated that the report predicts a substantial decline in the CNMI economy as a result of the legislation" (emphasis added).

It appears that the Governor has repeated this mischaracterization of the GAO report: Fitial said today that "the GAO concludes, even with the most favorable (and unrealistic) assumptions, that the law's implementation will most probably result in a 50-percent decline in the economic output (or GDP) of the Commonwealth by 2021 if not sooner." GAO would strenuously object to that mischaracterization of its conclusions.

The Fitial team had requested repeatedly that Congress delay passage of the federalization bill until GAO issued its report.

Congressional leaders replied that such a delay was not necessary. They said that the federalization bill itself would not harm the CNMI, and that the impact would depend on how the bill was implemented. They said that economic studies would be useful not to Congress in deciding whether to pass the bill, but rather to the Executive Branch in developing the regulations that would implement the bill. GAO appears to have endorsed this view.

Now, the feds have the very serious obligation of gathering the additional data that needs to be gathered and ensuring that federalization is implemented in a manner that allows the CNMI to develop a strong economy. We all have an interest in keeping the pressure on the feds to make sure that they do their job properly.

"Sue the federalizer jerks for the stench of their evil deeds!"

The Saipan Tribune reported recently that the CNMI Attorney General's Office is suing Danny Aranza, former director of the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Insular Affairs, in connection with a $130,000 contract to develop a port security plan. According to the news story, which can be found here, the report by Aranza's company plagiarized federal regulations.

The first question is how you can plagiarize federal regulations, which are supposed to be used and followed by those who are affected by them. Wouldn't the CNMI government want the report to state the requirements that had to be followed?

The more interesting question has to do with Aranza's history with the CNMI. Aranza led OIA during the Clinton Administration's push for federalization. A Saipan Tribune article in which then-Speaker Ben Fitial calls Aranza a "jerk" over the federalization issue can be found here. Actually, the Marianas Variety's version of the same story is even more amusing. In it, which unfortunately is not available online, Fitial calls Aranza a "jerk" seven times.

Not to be cynical, but might Aranza's support for federalization lead some to wonder whether this lawsuit is an attempt to punish the "federalizers" for the "stench of their evil deeds", to paraphrase one well-connected person's hilariously melodramatic recent comment on this very blog? (That quote proves that even humorless people can be very funny.) Could this be part of the strategy to fight federalization, and indeed the "evil federalizers" themselves, in the courts?

The Commitments

Blog polls are not scientific, in part because the people who respond to them are self-selected, and may not be representative of the community at large. Still, a couple of recent polls conducted on this blog and Glend558 may be worth looking at.

The poll on Glend558 asks: “Will you support a candidate in the next election if they support Fitial filing a lawsuit against the federal government?” The poll was conducted in response to the CNMI Legislature’s resolution to support the governor’s lawsuit (it has been referred to committee, where it will probably die a slow death). The results of the poll are astounding. As of today, 85.3% of those who responded say they would not support any candidate who supported the governor’s plan to sue the federal government.

This site’s poll asks whether people think Fitial could win a lawsuit challenging the federalization of immigration and labor, and fully 70% have responded “Fat chance.”

Numerous posts on this site and others have focused on the drawbacks of filing suit against the feds, and the seeming lack of any legal merit to it. There are many arguments against filing. A lawsuit will make it uncertain, perhaps for several years, whether foreign investors will be allowed into the CNMI, and whether employers will have access to foreign workers. Not knowing who’s in charge or what the rules will be will discourage private investment. Many have also pointed out that we should be working with the Department of Homeland Security to help draft the regulations to implement the new federal law, so we can get regulations that are favorable to our economy. A lawsuit will limit the degree of cooperation between the local government and the feds, and likely result in less favorable consideration.

Other posters have pointed out that the government can’t afford the cost of litigation, which the Fitial Administration has said will be $50,000 a month, and most believe there is little or no chance that the CNMI would win.

Fitial cannot even argue that the new law will harm the CNMI until the regulations are drafted and about to go into effect on June 1, 2009, only about six months before a new governor is inaugurated. Whoever the new governor is could withdraw the previous governor’s lawsuit, just as Fitial did with Babauta’s lawsuit to claim our cover-over money from the feds.

So here is the question: would you be more inclined or less inclined to support a candidate for governor who publicly committed to the following statement:

If I am elected governor, my first official act will be to withdraw any lawsuit filed against the federal government over the federalization of immigration in the CNMI.

"Don't hold your breath," but would green cards for long-term guest workers be good for the CNMI?

The following conversation was overheard recently at one of the water coolers here at Saipan Middle Road World Headquarters:

He said: "Did you here that Jim Benedetto said that CGWs shouldn't hold their breath hoping to get green cards?"

She said: "Yeah. He's been pretty consistent over the years in saying that workers shouldn't count on the hope that they'll get green cards."

He said: "OK, but let's forget for a minute about whether it's likely that CGWs will eventually be able to apply for green cards. If they were allowed to apply for green cards, would it be good for the CNMI?"

She said: "I guess that depends on who you are. It would be good for you if you were a foreign worker."

He said: "OK, but what if you were a business owner?"

She said: "Wouldn't most business owners prefer the way things were before the federalization law passed?"

He said: "Maybe, but that's not an option anymore. The feds have made it clear that the CNMI will eventually have to phase out its guest worker program and just follow the federal rules. They'll probably extend the phase-out for at least five years after 2014, maybe more. But eventually it will be phased out."

She said: "So what's your point?"

He said: "The only hope in the long term of business owners being able to keep their best CGWs is to give them green cards. Otherwise, they'll eventually have to leave."

She said: "But if you give them green cards, they can go to Guam or Hawaii or California."

He said: "Yeah, but if you don't give them green cards, they'll eventually have to leave unless they can qualify for a visa under U.S. standards, and some people--although I don't know if I trust these particular people--are saying that most CGWs probably can't. If these people are right, then giving CGWs green cards is the only hope under the new law of being able to keep the best long-term employees. If you're an employer, wouldn't you rather have a chance of keeping your long-term workers, even if they suddenly had more bargaining power and you had to pay them more, than not having a chance to keep them?"

She said: "I guess, but I'd probably like the old system even better."

He said: "Like I said, that's not an option. That's why giving CGWs green cards is probably the best option now for employers."

She said: "What about criminals and people like that."

He said: "They wouldn't qualify. You'd have to meet certain standards, and it would only be a one-time thing for workers who have already been here for, say, five years."

She said: "What about from the standpoint of locals? Do we want Filipinos to take control over our islands?"

He said: "Well, for one thing, that could already happen when their U.S. citizen children are old enough to vote. But if you give them green cards, a lot would leave."

She said: "Well, how would it help the locals?"

He said: "It would help the locals if you didn't have all of this cheap labor. The way things have been, pay is too low outside of government if you're a local, and in order to get a job in government, you have to kiss up to whoever's in power. If you changed the system, maybe locals who have left will come home, and maybe a lot of CGWs would leave to find better opportunities stateside. Businesses would have a shot at keeping the CGWs that they want to keep, but they'd have to compete for them just like employers have to do in Guam."

She said: "Well, I don't think it's going to happen. And also, those workers signed a contract and it was always understood that they would have to go home."

He said: "I know. I'm not saying that it's going to happen. Maybe it will and maybe it won't. And I'm not saying that the workers are entitled to get green cards. I'm just saying that if they did get green cards, maybe it would be the best thing for the CNMI, including the locals and the business owners. And maybe if we all recognized that this would be good for all of us, then we could really unite as a community--locals, businesses, CGWs, even the human rights activists--and lobby for it in Washington. And maybe if we all speak with one voice, rather than contradict each other like we usually do, they'll actually take us seriously for a change."

She said: "Well, if you could get the Chamber and Wendy Doromal and Taotao Tano all holding hands and pushing for this in DC, that might make an impression. But it will never happen."

He said: "Maybe it will never happen. But it should happen."

Litigate to negotiate?

The Saipan Tribune reports that Governor Fitial is preparing to sue the U.S. to invalidate the new federalization law. In his statement, the Governor says that he does "not question the authority of the Congress to apply to the Commonwealth the existing federal immigration laws that apply to every other part of the United States except American Samoa."

But wait a minute, if the feds did apply those laws to the CNMI, with no transitions, exceptions or special provisions, wouldn't almost all of the guest workers have to leave immediately? Wouldn't there be no hope of special visa waivers for tourists? Is the Governor really suggesting that it would be OK for the feds to apply standard immigration law to the CNMI immediately and with no exceptions, but that phasing out the guest worker program more slowly, offering a special visa waiver program, etc., is "an intrusion into our governance of local affairs to which no other community of United States citizens has ever been subjected"? Does this make sense?

Is this a good use of CNMI taxpayer funds? Is this merely a strategy of, as the Governor once put it, "litigate to negotiate"? But for that strategy to work, wouldn't the CNMI have to have some negotiating power?

Remember when the CNMI sued the U.S. over submerged lands and lost? The CNMI was left with no control over its offshore resources, unlike the other territories. The Senate then offered the CNMI control over its offshore waters up to three miles, which is what the other territories have. Pete A supported it but the Governor rejected it, on the theory that he would "negotiate" for more. As a result, the legislation died and the CNMI remains, years later, as the only territory with no control over its offshore resources. Is that how this "litigate to negotiate" strategy works? Are we missing something?

Should the CNMI change its status?

Congressman Stanley Torres has re-introduced legislation to study alternatives for the CNMI's status and relationship with the U.S. Although we don't want to pre-empt the work of the commission that would be created to study this issue under the legislation, we can at least get the discussion going. Should the CNMI change its status? If so, what should it change its status to?

One option would be independence in "free association" with the U.S. This is the status that applies to the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau. Although the freely associated states enjoy more automony than the CNMI, their autonomy is compromised by their heavy dependence on U.S. aid. And although they receive very high levels of aid per capita, they probably receive significantly less than what they would have received had they chosen to become territories. The FSM and the Marshalls have not been able to use their aid to get themselves on a path to sustainable economic development. If Palau has done better, it is perhaps because of its small and more concentrated population, better location (closer to Asia) and natural beauty that is amazing even by Pacific Island standards.

Also, other than the right to use FDM and training facilities on Tinian and the Northern Islands (all of which the U.S. military could probably live without), what would motivate Uncle Sam to cough up a huge economic aid package under a Compact of Free Association with the Republic of the Northern Mariana Islands?

Independence without free association with the U.S. is another option. Places like Kiribati demonstrate how difficult it is for small Pacific island nations to support themselves without a major benefactor.

How about reunification with Guam? Could that lead to eventual statehood? The population of Wyoming, the state that currently has the fewest people, is just over 500,000, and Alaska, North Dakota and Vermont each has less than 665,000 people.

How about the status quo? Is that so bad?

The U.S. Constitution probably doesn't allow any options other than those listed above, at least in terms of affiliation with the U.S. (If we missed one, please point it out.)

Is this bill motivated by bad feelings over the recent federalization debate? Is this a discussion that is nonetheless worth having?

Welcome Rally for Feds?

It's in the news today that a group of non-resident workers will hold a "Welcome Rally" for the visiting federal officers.

Why?

Read further here...

Blogged with the Flock Browser

C.U. in court!?

Rumor has it that Howard Willens, advisor to Governor Fitial, has already drafted a complaint that would initiate a lawsuit against the U.S. to block federalization. No word on whether the complaint is in final form, or whether the Governor has actually made the decision to proceed with a lawsuit. Would this be a good use of CNMI taxpayer funds? Clearly, people who favor the federalization bill recently signed by President Bush would say no. However, are there any opponents of federalization out there who nonetheless believe that this would not be a good use of CNMI taxpayer funds?

Reunited

Thanks to the effort of the Coalition of United Guest Workers (CNMI) led by Irene Tantiado, Dekada and the Human Dignity Movement have reunited for Saturday night's candlelight vigil in support of President Bush's signing of the CNMI immigration federalization bill.

We hope the unity shown will continue and is not only a publicity stunt, after months of bickering.

Hundreds of workers and their children held banners, placards, and candles as they silently stood beside the road across from Horiguchi Building in Garapan. Passing motorists honked their horn to show solidarity. Smiles were abundant, congratulatory remarks were heard everywhere, champagne was passed around.

Dekada president Bonifacio Sagana and Dekada lawyer Steve Woodruff and Human Dignity Movement president Jerry Custodio, along with Coalition's Irene Tantiado, Rep. Tina Sablan and Ron Hodges were among those in attendance -- all in one place.

The reunited groups vow to work toward a common goal: an improved immigration status for eligible guest workers, whether it's green card or permanent residency.

Over 6,000 signatures have been gathered so far petitioning the US Congress to grant eligible longterm guest workers green cards. The signature drive continues.

Another common goal is to support Rep. Tina Sablan's bill giving a new status to longterm foreign workers to protect these workers between now and the start of the transition period.

President Bush Signs CNMI Federalization and Delegate Bills Into Law

President Bush on Thursday signed into law S. 2739, which includes provisions to bring CNMI immigration under federal control and to allow CNMI voters to elect a non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives.

The President's signing of the bill comes as no surprise to most people, since his administration had testified earlier this year that federalization should occur "as soon as possible." However, some in the local administration had suggested that with the recent change of leadership at the Department of the Interior's Office of Insular Affairs, the Bush Administration would back off from its strong support for federalization. That notion has proven to be baseless wishful thinking.

Some local officials have presumed to interpret S. 2739 in ways that would be harmful to the CNMI and its residents. Although these local officials have asserted these views with great confidence, their interpretations appear to be out of step with the clearly stated intentions of the U.S. Congress (which, after all, is what counts). Here are some things that Saipan Middle Road's research staff has uncovered in the Senate report on the CNMI immigration federalization bill:

The intent of Congress is "to ensure effective border control and security by extending the INA with special provisions for: phasing out contract workers; minimizing adverse economic effects; recognizing local self-government; assisting the development of the CNMI economy; providing opportunities for locals to work; providing for the continued use of alien workers as necessary; and protecting workers from abuse." The "phasing out" of contract workers can occur over a long period of time, as discussed below, and even after the special guest worker program is eventually phased out, the CNMI will always be able to admit foreigners under the same rules that apply to the rest of the country.

Furthermore, "in recognition of the CNMI's unique circumstances, [the CNMI should] be given flexibility to maintain and develop businesses and...the Government of the CNMI [should be] fully involved in the implementation process."

The bill "would extend the immigration laws of the U.S. to the CNMI along with several special provisions to meet the special needs of the CNMI."

The CNMI's guest worker program will be taken over by the federal government and transformed into a Transitional Workers Program. That program will be separate from the existing federal program where foreign nationals will be enter the CNMI through H visas and other visas. "There will be two similar programs operating in the CNMI."

The Transitional Workers Program is originally scheduled to last through the end of 2014. However, the program can be extended indefinitely for periods of up to five years at a time. The Senate believes that "[i]t is most unlikely that the CNMI will be able to meet its labor needs and forego the Transitional Workers Program in five years. It is expected that there will be at least one, and probably more than one, five-year extension."

During the transition period, there will be no limit on the number of workers who can enter the CNMI (or Guam) on H visas. In the U.S. generally, there is an annual limit of 65,000 H-1B visas for professional and specialty workers, 20,000 additional H-1B visas for workers with at least a master's degree or its equivalent, and 66,000 H-2B visas for temporary non-agricultural workers. The Senate report makes it clear that the intention is "that this waiver of the numerical limitations for Guam and the CNMI is extended along with any extension of the five-year transition period.

With respect to long-term guest workers, the Act would require that "the [U.S.] Administration, in consultation with the CNMI, to report to Congress, no later than the second year after enactment on the population of aliens, status of aliens under federal law, future requirements of the CNMI for an alien workforce, and recommendations on whether Congress should consider permitting such workers long-term status under" U.S. law. No guarantees here, but the issue remains alive.

On fees, the Senate report "encourages the DHS, and all other Federal agencies involved in implementing the transition program period, to keep the costs associated with the transition program period on employers and non-immigrant guest workers at the same level as is currently being assessed by the CNMI government under local law."

On the visa waiver for tourists and other visitors: "The regulations should include countries for which the CNMI has received a significant economic benefit from the number of visitors for pleasure within the one-year period preceding the date of enactment. In drafting such regulations, the Committee encourages DHS to consult with the CNMI tourism industry to determine which tourists markets have contributed to the benefit of the CNMI economy and that such benefit can be measured in terms of hotel occupancy, length of stay, and expenditures." This provides a presumption, although not a guarantee, that China and Russia should be included, and special measures could be adopted to address any security concerns.

The law would also "allow the Governors of Guam and the CNMI to request DHS to create additional Guam or CNMI-only nonimmigrant visa categories if the ones provided for do not meet other circumstances."

The intent of Congress is extremely important in interpreting the obligations of federal executive branch in implementing the new law. If they ignore this intent, it could provide a basis for a lawsuit.

Now that Congress has explained exactly what it intended, we no longer need others to tell us what Congress intended. Unless you believe that these local "experts" know more about what Congress intended than Congress itself. There is no guarantee that this will all work out as intended. There is, however, plenty of good stuff to work with if everyone pulls together to make sure that this is done right. Let's all hope and pray that it will be done right, and work together to make that happen!

Coalition of guest workers

Hundreds showed up in today's general membership meeting of the newly formed Coalition of United Guest Workers (CNMI) at the Garapan Central Park. But they said the word "Guest" will soon be deleted from the group's name, in light of federalization.

The gathering was festive -- lots of Bangladeshis, Chinese, Filipinos and local supporters, free food, free entertainment (live bands, dances). The group now has a formal set of officers led by Irene Tantiado. Jerry Custodio of the Human Dignity Movement is also among the officers.
The guest speaker, Guam-based businessman and senatorial bet Alfredo Antolin's message was that of "patience." He said one year after Bush signs the measure this month and the CNMI immigration will be federalized.

Dekada leaders did not show up, although the coalition has been trying to reach out to them for the sake of real unity -- the same that was shown during December's historic unity march. Maybe in a few days or weeks, we will see one solid group of guest workers in the CNMI.

News Flash: House Passes Federalization and Delegate Bill...

...by a vote of 291 to 117. Unless President Bush vetos it (not likely), the bill will become law within 10 days.

House Clears Final Hurdle for CNMI Immigration Bill

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. House of Representatives today took the final legislative step needed by the Congress to approve legislation to extend U.S. immigration laws to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and to authorize a CNMI non-voting Delegate to the House of Representatives. The legislation, which passed by a vote of 291-117, will now be sent to the White House to be signed into law.

“For too long, abuses took place in the CNMI, and for too long, remedial legislation was held hostage in this body. Let this legislation bring forth a new dawn, a start of a new era, and with a Delegate to this body, let the voices of the people of the CNMI be heard,” said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV), a co-sponsor of the bill.

The Northern Mariana Islands Immigration, Security and Labor Act (ISLA) and the Northern Mariana Islands Delegate Act (H.R. 3079), which would extend U.S. immigration laws to the CNMI and establish a federally administered guest worker program on the island, was unanimously approved by the House on December 11, 2007. H.R. 3079 was later incorporated into a larger package of bills, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (S. 2739), sponsored by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM); the legislation was approved by the U.S. Senate on April 10, 2008.

Delegate Donna M. Christensen (D-VI), Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs and chief sponsor of H.R. 3079, praised the passage of the legislation and said, “The Congress’ approval of ISLA will ensure that employers have the ability to fill jobs, continue vocational training to empower CNMI residents with skills needed to succeed in their economy, foster partnerships with neighboring Guam to diversify the region’s economy, maintain adequate protections for the non-resident guest worker community, and strategically secure the Marianas archipelago.”

“Extending federal immigration law to the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas closes the guest worker loophole under which so many were held in modern slavery. The Constitution’s guarantee of freedom must apply everywhere in the United States, no matter how remote,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr., (D-MI), a co-sponsor of H.R. 3079.

“The people of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands will have a greater voice in Congress with the authorization for the election and seating of a Delegate to represent them in the House of Representatives. I look forward to the day that the Delegate from the CNMI is sworn in to the House of Representatives. This is long overdue, and a very important component of this omnibus, consensus bill. I thank Chairwoman Donna Christensen and Chairman Nick Rahall for their leadership in advancing this comprehensive legislation and ensuring the Delegate bill was made part of the overall effort,” said Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU).

The Bush Administration has testified before both the House and Senate in support of the legislation. Chairwoman Christensen, expressing a strong concern that all people on the CNMI have an opportunity to voice their opinions on H.R. 3079, held the first Congressional hearing on the islands in August 2007.

Breaking News: Senate Passes Federalization and CNMI Delegate Legislation

At 3:50PM Thursday Washington, D.C. time (5:50AM Friday CNMI time), the U.S. Senate passed S. 2739 by a vote of 91-4. Under Title VII of S. 2739, the Federal Government would assume authority over CNMI immigration.

The bill will now go back to the House for routine concurrence (the House already unanimously passed a virtually identical bill) and will likely be signed into law by President Bush in the next couple of weeks.

The Federal Government will take control of the CNMI's guest worker program in a year, although the start date can be delayed by six months. The special CNMI-only guest worker program is initially scheduled to be phased out by December 31, 2014. The phase-out period can, however, be extended indefinitely for periods of up to five years as long as a need can be demonstrated. The CNMI will also, however, always be able to admit foreign workers under the same visas that apply to the rest of the U.S., and during the transition period will not be subject to national caps on H-1B visas (for specialty or professional workers) or H-2B visas (for temporary nonagricultural workers). Contrary to misinformation that has been spread, S. 2739 would not phase out foreign workers in the CNMI; it would simply phase out, at the end of the (indefinitely extendable) transition period, the special CNMI-only guest worker program. Workers could still come to the CNMI under all U.S. visa categories, and there may even be special CNMI-only visa categories added in the future.

Within two years, the Secretary of the Interior (in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Governor of the CNMI) must provide Congress with a report that should include the Secretary of the Interior's recommendations on whether guest workers should be permitted to apply for long-term status under U.S. law.

S. 2739 would also provide for a special visa waiver program for Guam and the CNMI to promote tourism. Citizens of countries on the "visa waiver" list would be able to travel to Guam and/or the CNMI for business or pleasure for up to 45 days without having to go through the hassle of applying for a visa. Any country that has provided a "significant economic benefit" through tourism to the CNMI during the past year (including, Saipan Middle Road would suggest, China and Russia) would be on the visa waiver list unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that such country's inclusion on the list would be a threat to welfare, safety or security.

The law would also allow the CNMI and Guam Governors to petition the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of the Interior to add additional countries to the visa waiver list. There is already a pretty long list of countries whose citizens can travel to Guam without a visa. It is a pretty good bet that all of these countries would also be included in the new Guam-CNMI visa waiver program. The Governors can also petitition for consideration of additional special visas for Guam and the CNMI, such as for students or retirees.

The bill provides a good deal of flexibility to the Executive Branch to develop regulations and policies to implement the law. However, the Executive Branch is required to be guided by the following: "In recognition of the Commonwealth's unique economic circumstances, history, and geographical location, it is the intent of the Congress that the Commonwealth be given as much flexibility as possible in maintaining existing businesses and other revenue sources, and developing new economic opportunities."

Finally, S. 2739 will give CNMI voters the opportunity to elect a non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives in November of this year and every two years thereafter.

Here are a couple of questions to consider:

Will the passage of the federalization bill help those who have opposed federalization find common ground with those who have supported it, now that we all have the same interest in making sure that federalization is implemented in a way that supports growth and opportunity for the CNMI?

Will the CNMI administration's allies continue to explore the idea of longer-term residence for CNMI guest workers?

Well, what are your views on possible longer-term residence status for qualified foreign workers?

In a comment to the immediately preceding post, someone named "Anonymous" requested that we provide a forum for people to discuss their views on possible longer-term residence status for qualified foreign workers. Here at Saipan Middle Road, we know that we owe our phenomenal success to our willingness to respond to the wishes of you, our millions of loyal readers around the world. Your wish is our command.

To help guide our discussion, please see the questions raised in the following public service announcement:

UPCOMING COMMUNITY DISCUSSION FORUMS

TOPIC: WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON A POSSIBLE LONGER-TERM RESIDENCE STATUS FOR QUALIFIED FOREIGN WORKERS

WHEN AND WHERE:

Kagman Community Center, Wednesday, April 9, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. (Kagman, Capitol Hill, Papago, Santa Lourdes)

San Vicente Elementary School Cafeteria, Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. (DanDan, San Vicente, Kannat Tabla, Fina Sisu)

Garapan Elementary School Cafeteria, Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. (San Roque, Tanapag, As Matuis, Puerto Rico, Garapan)

Koblerville Community Center, Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. (San Antonio, Koblerville, Chalan Piao, Chalan Kanoa, Oleai, Susupe)

YOUR OPINIONS ARE WELCOMED:

How many years of successful work in the Commonwealth do you think should qualify a foreign worker for longer-term residence status?

What do you think of social responsibility requirements such as basic English skills and classes in CNMI history?

What kind of financial responsibility requirements do you think would be fair? What other factors do you think should be considered?

* * *

For those of you who just can't wait for the forum to which your village has been assigned, feel free to jump into the discussion now, right here on our pages. And while you're at it, feel free to discuss other, related issues as well:

Are you in favor of longer-term residence status for qualified guest workers?

Does it matter to you whether such status is granted by the CNMI Government or by the Federal Government?

What do you think are the motives of those participants in this discussion who have led the fight against granting long-term status to guest workers in the federalization bill? Whether or not you trust the motives of all of the participants, do you think that there's any harm in engaging in this process?

Does the prospect of longer-term residence status under CNMI law affect your views on federalization?

Do you think that this process has caused division in the community? Has any such division been avoidable? Do you think that guest workers and their advocates who support this dialogue and those who do not can set aside their differences for the good of the guest workers?

Why did they vote that Pinay chick off of American Idol? Is this all part of the same conspiracy?

Inquiring minds want to know what YOU think! Deluge us all with your wisdom and insight!

Where have all the workers gone?

Only 100-200 workers and other members of the community showed up Saturday at the prayer vigil in support of the US Senate-sponsored federalization bill and Rep. Tina Sablan’s draft bill granting long-term residency to foreign workers.

What a disappointment not only to the Human Dignity Movement, but also to the workers and supporters.

The organizers and speakers at the event – including Atty. Mark Hanson, Rep. Tina Sablan and representatives of the Filipino, Chinese, Bangladeshi communities – noted the result of disunity only four months since a historic crowd of 5,000-10,000 who marched for a better immigration status for long-term legal guest workers.

By now, Deanne Siemer and company, plus Dekada and their lawyer, may have been celebrating the fact that fewer showed up at the prayer vigil than the exploratory discussion on long-term residency held Wednesday night.

Suspicions, doubts and hatred directly and indirectly resulted in disunity among the workers who once stood “united” in their call for an improved immigration status.

Workers were urged to be cautious in choosing the direction to take – support the US Senate federalization bill which is expected to pass soon, support Tina Sablan’s draft bill for longer-term residency status, or support the exploratory discussions on the CNMI government granting of long-term residency status to long-time foreign workers.

Towards the end of the prayer vigil, organizers asked those in attendance to sign a petition calling for permanent immigration status in the CNMI.

The petition was addressed to the US Congress, the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and Nikolao Pula of the Interior.

Whatever happened to the Unity March?

A meeting to agree to 'meet' again on long-term resident status

Between 200 and 300 nonresident workers, as well as residents, showed up at the exploratory meeting on the long-term resident status public discussion initiative Wednesday night. A number of guest workers also remained outside Monte Carlo either because all seats were taken or for lack of $2 for the entrance fee (entirely for the use of the venue).

The question-and-answer didn’t start until 8:20 p.m. as the panelists consumed over an hour to introduce themselves, or praise the conduct of such an exploratory meeting, or explain why there’s such a meeting.

While many of the nonresident workers present were thankful that such a meeting was held and that they are being “heard” by “volunteer” lawyers, they also expressed frustration that the meeting dragged on for about four hours without agreeing on something other than having another exploratory meeting or having pocket meetings to discuss the viability of a long-term resident status for guest workers. The statements and answers given by the panelists were mostly a repetition of what was already said during the first two meetings.

All that most of the guest workers wanted was to have their leaders and Dekada lawyer Steve Woodruff tell Deanne Siemer, Maya Kara (and TaoTao Tano's Greg Cruz) that a grant of long-term residency should apply to those who have been here for five, seven or 10 years or more, and work from there. All they wanted was to have their leaders set the parameters and let the other party know where they stand; if only the guest worker leaders stood up and asked what the workers wanted, they’d have agreed on something albeit temporarily.

Many of the workers also said they were there just to hear what Siemer and Kara had to say; and they still prefer that their immigration status be addressed in the pending federalization bill. Local media representatives were there to cover the meeting. Rep. Tina Sablan, who is drafting a bill giving long-term residency status to certain guest workers, was also in the meeting.

Because the meeting dragged on for hours without really going anywhere, seats became empty, until this one young boy fell asleep (last photo).

Permanent residency for aliens courtesy of the CNMI gov't? Really now?

The Fitial administration apparently wants to grant its own version of "permanent residency" to longtime nonresident workers in the CNMI. But this early, the idea is getting lukewarm response; if not outright rejection.

Early this afternoon, Deanne Siemer, who calls herself a volunteer counsel for the governor, along with Maya Kara, met with representatives of longtime nonresident workers, for a "consultation meeting" regarding the granting of permanent residency to eligible alien workers.

It was not supposed to be a secret meeting, but nobody from the media was invited (or maybe they'd have an interview with the key players later), and only a few were advised of the gathering beforehand.

There were about 30 present in the meeting, including Atty. Steve Woodruff, Greg Cruz, and alien workers.

What makes the CNMI government's idea of granting permanent immigration status to longtime guest workers better than what the federal government would have offered?

Among the questions in people's mind: What exactly would a CNMI government-granted permanent residence status entail? What are the benefits to alien workers? To residents? Why only now? Is it only for show? To appease the federal government, now that it is federalizing CNMI immigration? What are the eligibility requirements? Whose idea is this? Why call it permanent residency? Why not long-term alien residency? How could it be done -- through plebiscite?

The next 'consultation meeting' has been tentatively set for April 2, so be ready with your questions.