there simply was not (yet) enough information available at any level for which reasonable and accurate comments could be made. The closest, so far, have been the series of factually based articles written by Bruce Mailman and Maya Kara, both attorneys with considerable immigration experience, while most others seem hell-bent on an unrelenting course of unreasonable and inaccurate comments.
However, the recent rush headlong of the CNMI into something called a “two-year umbrella” permit and the subsequent brouhaha over consequences has me clawing for some sense of sanity in this whole mess. Yet, it seems, the answers may lie within the very series of articles that appear sometimes at the same time in the same newsprint, but have yet to be assimilated by a suspicious and tormented public.
On one hand we have the ubiquitous “volunteer,” Deanne Siemer, supported by the governor, the CNMI Department of Labor, and many of the governor’s minions including HANMI, the Saipan Chamber of Commerce and (in a recent article) “consultancy” with no less than four (in-the shadows) lawyers “representing foreign workers” and the Philippine consul-general. Personally, I would like to know just WHO is having input (or forming the output) into these policies other than a “volunteer” and just what that input might be. And make no mistake, what’s coming out from the CNMI’s “halls of the ethereal” are not laws or even regulations, but rather “policies” — thus leading, rightfully so, to the legal question of: “Are they legal?” Just how many times in the past have we seen such last minute scrambling (apparently to either satisfy campaign promises or garner upcoming votes) on the part of CNMI “officials” turn out to be bogus when closely examined at later dates? The CUC debacle being the latest example.
Regardless of your stance right now, two diametrically opposed sides to the issue have emerged: 1) The two-year permit protects a workers status; and 2) The two-year permit does NOT protect the workers status. Depending on who you listen to, you may see points from each, but you must not allow yourself to be transfixed by one or the other. You must dig deeper to see through the folderol of propaganda and what the various sources are, most importantly, leaving out of their arguments. Of course, the deciding factor will be the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the ultimate regulations.
Ms. Siemer states: “The two-year permit protects a worker’s status. If a worker does not have the two-year permit that the commonwealth is offering, and their current permit expires, they could be completely out of status with absolutely no way to get back into status.”
Ms. Doromal counters with: “the new permit policy will also benefit business owners who want to maintain the broken labor system, the Department of Labor, and those who profit…at the expense of the disenfranchised workers.”
Enter Mailman and Kara: “All of the current labor system will remain in place and compliance with that system is the conditional aspect of the umbrella permit. If the conditions are violated, the permit may be revoked.” Followed with: “There is also a direct economic benefit to the employer: instead of renewing workers for the full two-year period prior to Nov. 28, the employer can now make the choice to renew or not renew at the end of the current contract.”
What does it all mean? The simplest boiled-down upshot seems to be that the CNMI’s two-year “umbrella” permit system in reality means little or nothing but electioneering fluff — and perhaps more heinous than usual, may lead alien workers to a false sense of security. The governor and his minions, including our ever-present volunteer, seem to be trying to convince foreign workers to grab this “umbrella” as if it were their only salvation in a sea of controversy; a sea mostly aroused to anger by the very same people who now claim to be the ointment for calming the waters.
Note the explanation of Mailman and Kara that “all of the current labor system will remain in place…if the conditions are violated, the permit (umbrella) may be revoked,” meaning that a worker must ALSO re-new his/her CURRENT work permit when it expires sometime between now and the next two years. The “umbrella” permit apparently does NOTHING to extend currently existing permits — so what IS its purpose other than to lead to the aforementioned false sense of security? Does it confer a “right” to renew ones existing permit if it expires before Nov. 27, 2011? I believe NOT, since such a permit is a matter of POLICY, not LAW.
What benefits will accrue to the worker? Well IF the worker is one who has recently been issued a new CNMI two-year work permit, then practically nothing. And IF the worker is not one of those, then, even if he/she obtains the “umbrella” permit, he/she will still have to obtain a contract renewal from their employer during the two year period between Nov. 2009 and Nov. 2011, otherwise, the “conditions” will not be satisfied and the “umbrella,” like so much smoke, will simply disappear! Further, and contrary to Ms. Siemer, the employee, even though in “out-of-status” category COULD still get back into “status” if they or their employer has the means to obtain a legitimate USCIS status — something that will be required of all workers eventually whether at the end of the first month after Nov. 28, 2009, sometime in between, at the end of two years or any extensions yet to be determined by USCIS. The fly in the ointment here seems to be that the worker may have to return to his/her home country before USCIS authorities would renew (or originate) legitimate “status” at the behest of any current or potential employer.
This is an even likelier scenario because now the employer (according to Mailman and Kara) will no longer have to bear the expense of permit renewal THIS year and could simply wait until the actual permit expires and allow the worker to fall into an “out of status” category since the “umbrella” does NOT guarantee renewal or extension. It appears that only those lucky few employees who have recently been issued valid two-year permits and those who qualify for USCIS visas will be around after expiration of their current permits. Those whose current permits expire (no matter their length) will need to renew under USCIS regulations and will probably tramp to the USCIS office with “umbrella” permit in hand only to be told: “You have no current CNMI work permit.” Yet all of this could be changed when DHS finally issues its long awaited regulations.
So why is the renewal of permits (whenever they expire) important? Well, yet another comment by Mailman and Kara states: “There are the H1 and H2 visa categories that are potentially available…[but] we believe that very few CNMI employers will be willing or able to obtain such visas for their employees.” This is highly likely and lends even more credence to the scenario that these smoke-filled “umbrella” permits will have no real benefit to workers but at least some benefit to employers; “employers” being primarily those clinging to the lifeline of HANMI and the Chamber — both apparent minions of the governor; “other” employers being unceremoniously left flagging in the breeze as their employees are whittled away by as yet undetermined USCIS requirements — albeit, a few of them deservedly so.
This whole thing appears absolutely designed to perpetuate a proven faulty system of benefit only to beholden employers with little or no incentive for those alien employees whose tireless work and sacrifice has led to many of the foundation building blocks of the CNMI — even if the whole thing was built on quicksand. It is also a system that has precluded the development of “trade education” in the CNMI, which should have been the MAIN goal of a dysfunctional NMC, but instead was relegated to a small handful of start-up trade schools continually bashed in the head by government “un-thinking” in order to support yet another dysfunctional labor system — all to the extreme detriment of a local workforce led down the path of non-righteous employment in the very government that is the source of it all. Thus goes the cycle of inevitability not unlike the proverbial “automatic self-licking ice-cream cone” soon to be slurped into non-existence by its own existence.
And so we now have no less than TWO “documents” from the CNMI: the governor’s “Protocol for Transition” (written by yet another “volunteer”) and an “umbrella” permit — both of which appear to be yet more feeble attempts at perpetuation of the status quo and may just amount to squat when the feds take over.
In summary, I would say to those who elect to obtain the “umbrella” permit, go ahead, but be forewarned that you STILL must comply with the conditions of your existing permit — and that includes a nonguaranteed renewal that may just give your employer lease to forego current renewal in exchange for a rather nebulous future. For those who do NOT elect to obtain the “umbrella,” well, you appear not have lost anything you don’t already have or will have — being primarily insecurity and anxiety.
DR. THOMAS D. ARKLE JR.
San Jose, Tinian
