By Zaldy Dandan
Variety Editor

A FRIEND asked me what I thought about Al Stayman’s recent visit — i.e, what was my take on the subject of the “federal takeover” which has been dangling over the CNMI’s head since 1986.
Let me start by pointing out the obvious. The longer this issue drags on the more uncertain the CNMI’s already cloudy economic conditions will be. New investors will have — are having — second thoughts about doing business in a place where labor and immigration rules may change faster than you can say, “What happened?” And businesses that are already here are considering moving to Guam where the economy is better, the future looks brighter and labor and immigration laws are, well, sturdier.
Without a resolution to this most basic question regarding the islands’ investment rules, the commonwealth will remain in economic limbo.
So what is to be done? The CNMI government can 1) continue doing what it has been doing since the Reagan administration by reiterating its opposition to federalization;2) do nothing and hope for the best; or 3) negotiate the drafting and passage of a federal measure that will address federal AND local concerns.
Option 2 has long been the specialty of CNMI elected officials but is a non-option in this issue. The argument for option 1, in the past, was that federalization would “kill” the local economy — which is now barely breathing despite local control over minimum wage and immigration. (To say nothing about the CNMI’s continued dependence on federal dole-outs.) Clearly, CNMI officials have to consider option 3 — unless they want a renegotiation of the islands’ political status. But who among them are willing to ask the local people to give up their U.S. passports so the garment industry can continue hiring $3.05-an-hour Chinese workers? Anyone?
There are three other ridiculous arguments against the extension of federal minimum wage and immigration laws to the islands — 1) it is “against the spirit” of the Covenant; 2) it will “damage” local self-government; and 3) labor and immigration abuses are also happening on the mainland U.S.
Ambassador F. Haydn Williams, the unacknowledged “father” of the Covenant, practically blindsided CNMI officials in the recent U.S. Senate hearing when he noted that during negotiations it was understood that the federal government would eventually extend control over local immigration. Local control was viewed as temporary. “In addressing this matter,” he said, “a brief look back at the Covenant negotiations may be useful to remember the times, the context and the spirit in which the talks were conducted — namely the long-held desire of the NMI to become a permanent part of America.” The U.S., he added, “agreed that in a transition period — before the end of the Trusteeship and the coming into force of U.S. sovereignty — the new commonwealth would be given transitional responsibility for immigration.” Williams said the Covenant recognizes the U.S. Congress as the “ultimate authority” on NMI immigration. Section 503 states that “Congress retained the ultimate authority to make U.S. immigration laws applicable to the CNMI following termination of the Trusteeship.”
Now how can federal immigration and minimum wage laws that apply to all the states and all but two of the other U.S. jurisdictions diminish NMI self-government? Like their fellow Americans elsewhere, the people of the commonwealth will continue to run their local government even if the feds are paying the salaries of local immigration personnel. American Samoa officials oppose federalization — specifically a wage hike — not because of “self-government” issues, but because it might kill tuna canning operations there.
But why federalize local wage and immigration when labor and immigration abuses also happen in the states?
So why ask the FBI to look into local crimes when there are worse crimes happening in the U.S.? Why ask FEMA to provide aid whenever a typhoon hits the islands when tornadoes, hurricanes and other natural disasters also happen in the states? Why ask for federal education, public health and public safety grants and other assistance when they are also needed in the U.S.?
It would appear that only the CNMI youth understand that this entire issue is simply about applying the wage and immigration laws of their country, the U.S., to their home islands that have been temporarily exempted from these statutes.
In any case, as this newspaper has repeatedly pointed out in the past, the real, because more honest, argument against federalization is this: an abrupt wage hike will strangle a lot of businesses, and a sweeping federalization of local immigration will dilute Chamolinian political dominance. (Although even without federalized immigration laws, the local people are already outnumbered by foreigners who continue to give birth to U.S. citizen babies — future CNMI voters all.)
These two points should be the basis of the CNMI’s negotiation with the U.S. Congress. But among local officials who have spoken about this issue, Washington Rep. Pete A. Tenorio remains the only one who knows what he is talking about. Now remember that Pete A., like the rest of CNMI politicians in the 1990s, was adamantly opposed to federalization. He used to write those fire and brimstone letters to Congress to denounce federal takeover measures. But Pete A. was on the local panel that negotiated the drafting of the Covenant with Ambassador Williams, and now that he is in Washington, he knows how dead-serious the U.S. Democrats are in extending federal wage and immigration laws to these islands. His testimony during the recent U.S. Senate committee hearing outlined a reasonable proposal that will, once and for all, resolve this issue, end all this uncertainty, while at the same time protecting the local economy and the local people’s political dominance.
Pete A. admits that his proposals may not be enough, but they are also a “starting point for further discussion.” He’s right and the rest of the CNMI officials should listen to him — before it’s too late.

Send feedback to zdtion@lycos.com