Nevertheless, the circumstances that we all face today boils down to this: The issue of immigration and the strategic agreement that the U.S. proposed right at the beginning of the negotiation of the Covenant have been approved even before the negotiation was completed by the status negotiators. On the strategic agreement, it is common sense that the Department of Defense cannot properly enforce military policies without controlling immigration.
However, the labor issue is vague on both sides; the U.S. and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. At one point in time, Labor and Immigration were consolidated as one department by the commonwealth government because it linked together. To self-govern the CNMI in this area is like asking the U.S. government to negate the issue of strategic governance in that controlling immigration also means controlling the port of entry. As a result, all of the guest workers would be turned away upon arrival into the CNMI, should the U.S. government decide to do so.
When the terrorists attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. saw the urgency to close all borders. Truly, the ends justify the means. The argument of infringing on the right of self-governing versus the right to protect the U.S. citizens have to be weighted accordingly. The provision of self-government and its spirit in the Covenant, and the provision of the right of the U.S. Congress to extend any federal laws to the territories as deem appropriate outweigh the self-government issue.
Recent events on the local media can further substantiate the issue. On Sept. 2, 2008 (Marianas Variety, Pg. 1), I explained that the CNMI immigration was based on the strategic agreement, and that the Sept. 11th incident contributed in the justification of that agreement. In addition, on Sept. 12, 2008, Governor Fitial, at the Saipan airport, delivered a speech acknowledging the incident that took place on Sept. 11th, 2001, stating that it “contributed to the federalization of our immigration system.” Furthermore, on Sept. 16th, 2008, (Marianas Variety, Pg. 4) an article entitled, “Indigenous Group Lauds Fitial Lawsuit,” was published explaining the reasons for which the lawsuit was filed. Even if I were to go against my stance on federalization, it is obvious that the CNMI has not only redundancy but also confusion as well within her government.
Furthermore, let us review the Covenant on Article V, Section 504, which provides us with ample opportunity to “survey the laws of the United States and to make recommendations to the United States Congress as to which laws of the United states not applicable to the Northern Mariana Islands should be made applicable and to what extent and in what manner, and which applicable laws should be made inapplicable and to what extend and in what manner.” It also provides mechanism that is in favor to us, such as the composition of the commission; four of which are from CNMI and three of which are from the U.S.
Moreover, let us examine the hearing before the U.S. Congress Subcommittee on the Insular, on June 17, 1991, held in San Francisco, California. The journal was printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. On page 76, on the last paragraph, the then-Washington representative, Mr. Juan N. Babauta, tried to make excuses as to the reason why the former chairman of the Federal Laws Commission, Mr. Ben Fitial, was not in attendance to present his findings. This was not only negligent on our part, but also contributed to a travesty on this lawsuit that our governor, the very same individual who is asking for $400,000 to defend the commonwealth government in the lawsuit, has so arrogantly made. Up until this day, nobody knows for what reason Mr. Ben Fitial failed to come before the U.S. Congress to present his findings when it was the most important and appropriate time to bring the issue of what we are facing today and among other things.
Furthermore, I do agree with Governor Fitial in the issue of finding $400,000, NOT for the purpose of suing the federal government, but to defray the cost of those less fortunate families in the CNMI who cannot afford to pay for their CUC billings. Yes, with our current situation in the CNMI, I do agree with federalization.
DAVID M. CING
Former CNMI senator
