Some lauded Attorney General Edward T. Buckingham for writing the legal brief himself while others said it may put the people of the commonwealth on the side of “racial profiling.”
Attorney Michael Dotts said: “First off, I am very glad to see that the [AG] wrote the brief himself this time, rather than contracting out the work to some large mainland law firm.”
The veteran lawyer added, “While submitting a brief is a well-intentioned attempt to draw some national interest the CNMI’s way, I do not believe it will succeed. I don’t think anyone will care that the CNMI joined in Arizona’s arguments, but maybe I am wrong and it doesn’t hurt for the AG to try.”
According to Dotts, “Although the situation in the CNMI is very different than that in Arizona, maybe now that immigration has become a national issue on the mainland, comprehensive nationwide immigration reform will result legislatively.”
He added: “Maybe the CNMI will be included in a footnote in that legislation. Maybe the senators from Arizona will remember us from submitting the brief when the legislation goes to the floor and instead of asking ‘Where is Saipan?’ they will actually do something to help the CNMI. Then maybe if some good legislation is passed in Washington that also includes the CNMI, we will be able to give some certainty to our investors, to our nonresident workers, and to all the employers in the CNMI. Too many ‘maybes’ I know, but at least the AG is trying.”
Attorney Stephen Woodruff, an advocate for improved status for guest workers and nonresident-local unity, said: “It is an embarrassment to the people of the CNMI. It puts the CNMI on the side of racial profiling, anti-alien bigotry, and the fanatical right wing of the U.S. Republican Party.”
Two lawyers, who requested anonymity, had different takes on the issue.
“To me, Arizona and the CNMI’s positions are polar opposites. Arizona, unlike the CNMI, wants the federal government to enforce federal immigration laws,” one of them said.
The other lawyer said “since the CNMI is supporting Arizona’s racist immigration law, shouldn’t tourists be boycotting the CNMI as well? It’s only fair.”
Jim Rayphand said he hasn’t read the brief or the Arizona law itself, “so I can’t say much about the CNMI’s support of it.”
However, he added: “I do think states have both the right and a duty to protect their borders (and thus our nation) the way they see fit. Of course, states need to tread lightly around people’s civil liberties on the good chance that some Napoleon-complex, knuckleheaded cops may take it upon themselves to unnecessarily profile and detain U.S. citizens under arbitrary suspicion of being illegal.”
Retired educator and local historian Don A. Farrell of Tinian said: “This is a U.S. Republican Party support for ‘States Rights’ in a mid-term election.”
“If the CNMI government is joining the challenge as part of a movement toward statehood, then it is fully justified. The federal government’s rush to take over immigration in the commonwealth without a well-defined policy regarding non-resident labor has significantly deterred the economic development of the territory,” he added.
