Mixed messages from NMDs

There’s no doubt I’ve also been ultra-critical of Delegate Gregorio C. Sablan (Kilili) for his stance on the pathway to citizenship measure for some 14K folks from without. Reason? Current INS laws provide every applicant the opportunity to go through the process versus convenient grandfathering. There’s no need to push for its acceleration!

Essentially, it is a position heavily supported by the NMD group. It even insisted for a meeting with Kilili so he could articulate his plans. Unfortunately, he’s shied from his usual town hall meeting knowing he must have struck a fatal chord on this issue.

But may I stop Planet Earth from continuing on its orbit, momentarily.

The NMDs refuse a pathway to citizenship for foreigners who have been here for years. Such fear is moored on political displacement of the indigenous people from self-government and the denial of jobs for locals now occupied by CWs.

Yet some NMD heads also wish to bring in 5,000 new foreign workers to work on the planned 2,000-room casino hotel. Is this a situational irony or sheer grand contradiction highlighting the inability of NMDs to define what it is that it wants? Or is this agenda solely limited to NMD purveyors who employ the age-old strategy of divide and conquer while protecting measures to secure their wealth and authority?

Which is which—more foreign workers or less—and why would you disallow some while allowing others? Did you fail to see that the newcomers could easily bring in an additional 5,000 new U.S. citizens by natural birth here annually? Do you wish to see them excluded too given their rights for citizenship? Since when were you appointed general manager of the universe on pro-creation? Something’s definitely amiss here even at the simple apprehension level.

Indeed, my critical views must have been fodder for Kilili’s political nemesis. But does the challenger have answers to these concerns or is he in for the ride in the controversy that has enveloped Kilili? May we hear your views so we know there’s personal percipiency on issues of substance? Observer status is unacceptable and it takes more than ceremonial candidacy to defeat a charismatic and an established politician.

Please spare us the high school calisthenics of phony political answers. We’ve memorized that script like the back of our hands. Let’s see you articulate your plans. In either case, none of you is absolved from realistic articulation of this and other substantive issues in the dysfunctional relationship between the feds and the NMI today. Both incumbent and challenger(s) must earn our trust and confidence!

Substance counts so we know that you understand full measure the prevailing issues of concern on the local and national table. I mean, you would be dealing with fiery academically competent types—top 1 percent—from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford universities sitting in the lower chamber. These folks have equipped themselves with knowledge-based materials and information. Have you? Would you hit the ground running, confused which way is the goal line?

Can you guys honestly engage them in intellectual debates and discussions on matters of substance? Or do you tuck your tails between your legs using garbled English in hopes of securing sympathy for meekly sporting lack of perception, disorientation, and irrelevance?

On major federal regulations

The NMI can’t sit idly by absorbing major federal regulations without participation, specifically whether any of the new dictates may be in violation of the Covenant Agreement that set the relationship some 36 years ago.

Bureaucrats throughout federal departments and independent agencies drafted the new dictates. None of them is subject to U.S. congressional oversight or judicial review. Whatever the feds issued is final and as good as law of the land. Herein lies the danger of what they’d be mandating the CNMI without due knowledge of the agreement.

May I reiterate: the new dictates establish the “administrative state” where bureaucrats we’ve never elected write out rules on issues and programs without our participation. Our only role is to follow them like some wounded sheep in the pasture or in servility—obedient slaves!

The Obama administration is “aggressively exploiting regulation to achieve its policy agenda, issuing 157 new major rules that costs about $73 billion annually,” according to a study by the Heritage Foundation.

Last year alone, “the administration imposed 26 new major rules. And much more regulation is on the way with another 125 major rules including the Patient Protection and Affordable Act, also known as Obamacare.”

At the same time, it seems our illustrious and esteemed delegate is mute on what these new regulations entail. It’s another misgiving in his failure to do due diligence on our behalf. Or is he overwhelmed by what’s known in Washington-speak as lobbyists?

Has he simply decided to leave our fate in the margins, treating his dissenting few as “bottom dwellers”? He should have something distinct to offer, if not in substance then in analytical rigor. You see, when our voices are heard then it presents greater opportunities for a stronger polity. To keep us at the fence is indeed loopy that drives reasonable people away.

Understandably, the issue raised herein is actually the function of the federal executive branch. It means, there’s a need for the governor to revive the 902 talks so he has someone in D.C. monitoring new major regulations. For now, we are still very forgiving as to allow even tired rhetoric (redundant as they may be) to fill in its own blanks.

The challenger isn’t absolved from probing what these new dictates entail. Call it preparation so he has a grasp on what they are and whether their crafting is in complete accord with the agreement. We need rock solid, realistic, and percipient answers that place any discussion and debate in palatable form for all to understand.

John DelRosario Jr. is a former publisher of the Saipan Tribune and a former secretary of the Department of Public Lands.