Reaction to ‘Our future: A matter of policy’

I read your column in the Saipan Tribune today. And when I was finished I kept thinking about your conclusion that “the process for dialogues no longer exist.” I don’t really know anything about that. At any rate, it is a key point in the current “federalization issue.”

Another of your conclusions (or points) is that the views of the CNMI were never solicited as the Feds contemplated, planned and solidified the approaching federalization of labor and immigration. And that this process began “years ago.” Another key point in the “federalization issue.”

You also put forth some economic numbers concerning federalization, including the annual(?) loss of $5 million of revenues normally collected by the CNMI from foreign workers. You compare this to the estimated $400,000 that it would cost to fund a lawsuit against the Feds. The assumption is that if the lawsuit is won, the CNMI will not lose the abovementioned revenues. Sounds clear.

And so at the end of my first reading I thought that I should reconsider my current attitude that it is not a good idea to sue the Feds. I also thought about what Attorney General Matt Gregory was quoted as saying: Suing the Feds is not considered un-American at all. It’s, in fact, our duty to do such in this case. As that is from memory, I hope it’s correct.

I then went back a while later and re-read your column. This time it took me a lot longer. I re-read a number of sections, a number of times until I felt I understood what you were saying. I made notes in the margins as one might due when really trying to understand an issue. Well, I ended up with a few questions, and perhaps thoughts that might be food-for-thought for you and others.

Midway through your article you state, “…how best to approach maintaining and improving dismal economic conditions here. There’s also a dire urgency and need to resolve instituting sustainable economic programs on a resource-poor archipelago.”

If through a successful lawsuit or some other form of resolution the CNMI were to retain its current immigration and labor status, what would the current or new administrations do toward resolving the quandaries as stated in the previous paragraph? Might it be advantageous to seek ways to encourage additional federal assistance? Can the CNMI really go it alone?

And speaking of the Feds, you go on to say, “a good beginning to force them into understanding the history of the unique agreement between two sovereign governments in 1972.” I wonder if this is simply a braggadocio figure of speech, or do you really consider it possible to force them? If so, how? And with what results?

It seems that at the core of your conclusions and points is the consideration of self- government. You speak of two sovereign governments. Is the CNMI really a sovereign government, or a portion of the whole of the United States of America? I believe that there are other U.S. Commonwealths, such as Virginia and Massachusetts, which are both states of the U.S. And I believe their immigration is U.S.-controlled. And I’m not sure about how their labor is handled. Of course, the CNMI is not a state, but a territory, and that, no doubt, creates a separate distinction. Hummm. Might it work for the CNMI if the Feds controlled immigration and left labor as a local control? Is that possible? Is that how Virginia and Massachusetts do it? This gets more complicated as I move along. I think I’ll stop and take some time to look into what the Covenant really says about the CNMI and the United States.

Anyone else have any light to shed on these subjects? Hope so!