By Haidee V. Eugenio
Variety Assistant Editor

THE U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has asked the Department of the Interior “whether the commonwealth could operate an immigration system that is satisfactory to the federal government.”
The panel noted that in its Sept. 1999 hearing on the CNMI, administration witness said “no” to the same question.
This is one of the 24 questions to Interior on local immigration posed by the Senate panel which has oversight jurisdiction over the CNMI and other insular areas.
“Please provide the committee the current administration position regarding whether the commonwealth could operate an immigration system that is satisfactory to the federal government,” the committee asked Interior.
The committee also wants to know the validity of the CNMI government’s proposals over the past year to change its labor and immigration policies that include the deportation of guest workers who are in the CNMI under temporary work authorizations, the granting of authority to issue entry permits to casino operators, regulations to permit the entry of foreign elementary and secondary school students to attend private schools (see related story on this page), and the selling of CNMI residency to foreign investors for $200,000 to $250,000.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Insular Affairs David B. Cohen earlier disclosed that he was given until Jan. 26 to respond to these 24 “complex questions about labor and immigration in the CNMI.”
Cohen said a hearing is likely to follow.
Interior was asked whether it is willing to consider granting requests from the CNMI for increases in appropriations for operations, capital or other funding, given the serious revenue shortfalls currently facing the commonwealth and the apparent decline in essential public services.
In March, CNMI Washington Rep. Pete A. Tenorio requested an additional $140 million from Congress through Interior under the fiscal year 2008 appropriations for operations and construction projects.
Included in the list of questions is the number of non-U.S. citizen residents in the CNMI who are not guest workers and the basis for their being in the CNMI — whether they are Compact migrants, investors, dependents of workers, illegal residents, or others.
The 24 questions were divided into four areas: socio-economics, the federal-CNMI initiative, criminal activity/law enforcement, and national security/terrorism.
The Senate panel wants to know the current population of the CNMI, with a breakdown of U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens, as well as the total number of guest workers, the gross domestic product, the unemployment rate among U.S. citizens, among other socio-economic indicators.
“Please provide historical and current estimates for the number of private sector and public sector jobs in the CNMI economy, and the number that are held by U.S. citizens,” another item states.
Included in these questions are a comparison of the CNMI’s border control policies with those of the rest of the U.S., and whether all commuter flights from the CNMI to Guam are subject to Transportation Security Agency inspection.
The panel also wants to know whether the CNMI’s foreign investor program which permits investors to enter the CNMI with $50,000 to start a business has ever been independently evaluated, and how many of such businesses there are.
The list of questions also includes the amount of money remitted by guest workers annually, the rate of emigration of U.S. citizens from the CNMI and the factors that will affect the historic trend, and the adequacy and reliability of essential public services including water, power, wastewater, health care and education.
Another question refers to how the incentives and disincentives compare for both CNMI businesses and for the CNMI government in the hiring of aliens versus the hiring of U.S. citizens.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in its June 5, 2001 report to the Senate, asked, “What job creation exists in the private sector goes to foreign workers. The ability to obtain skilled foreign workers at low wages effectively forecloses opportunities for United States residents in both entry and skilled positions.”
The committee asks whether Interior generally agrees with this.
The 2001 report added, “A by-product of this situation has been increased pressure on the public sector to expand solely to provide jobs.” The committee also wants to know whether Interior generally agrees with this.
The committee also wants an update on the funding levels, activities and assessment of progress of an inter-agency task force under the Federal-CNMI Initiative on Labor, Immigration and Law Enforcement.
Also on the list is how the CNMI regulates its casino industry, and whether any federal agency has ever evaluated the performance of the local gambling regulatory authorities.
“How does the presence of organized crime elements from Japan, China and Russia in the CNMI compare with that of Guam,” one of the questions asked.
A brief description of the current and anticipated military presence in the CNMI and Guam was also asked.
The committee also wants to know whether any federal or CNMI agency has ever investigated alleged “kickbacks” to garment factories of portions of recruitment fees charged to workers from China.
It also inquires about the number of CNMI labor investigators and hearing officers over the past 10 years.
Interior was also asked whether there is a correlation between the high rate of federal and local welfare participation and the CNMI’s labor and immigration policies.
Cohen earlier said the new Congress has expressed interest in federalizing immigration in the CNMI although the timing and terms of any immigration federalization legislation is not yet clear.