The U.S. government said the alleged harms presented by the CNMI are economic in nature, and there is no link between the claimed injuries and a loss of autonomy and control.
The U.S. government said the CNMI, in its complaint, described different programs for the protection of foreign workers — the orientation of each arriving guest worker in their own language, a standard contract forms in specifying terms of conditions of employment, full medical coverage, the bonding of employers, mediation and early dispute resolution, low cost and speedy administrative adjudication of disputes and fully funded repatriation.
But the CNMI did not identify how the federalization law, or the Consolidated Natural Resources Act, or CNRA, will pre-empt these programs, the U.S. government stated.
“It remains guesswork on the part of the CNMI as to what the regulations implementing the CNRA will look like, or how they will affect the programs cited,” the defendants said.
The U.S. government stated that the CNMI did not describe how the provisions of the CNRA “relating to the admission of aliens and removal of aliens” will pre-empt local programs.
The CNMI has no idea what the transitional period visa program will provide, who will be eligible or what impact it will have on foreign workers, the U.S. government said.
“There has been no final rulemaking on the transitional visa program, and any assertion as to its scope and effect is merely speculative,” it added.
The CNMI claims that the CNRA encroaches on its self-governance by eliminating the commonwealth’s ability to draw revenue from fees associated with its foreign worker permitting system and immigration administration.
“The CNMI makes no attempt to describe how the loss of revenues constitutes a harm to its institutional right to self-governance,” the U.S. government stated.
In a 34-page motion to dismiss filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday, the U.S government reiterated the three reasons why the lawsuit should be dismissed —the CNMI does not have standing to bring this action because the injuries alleged in the complaint are too speculative; the CNMI governor does not have authority to bring this action; and there is no legal basis for this action to go forward since the commonwealth cannot allege facts that would support the relief claimed.
The governor filed the lawsuit in September last year. The U.S. government filed its motion to dismiss in December.
The governor’s lawyers then filed an opposition to the U.S. government’s motion.
