Distinct issues that are being mixed up

What a pity that strong feelings have taken over for clear thinking, muddling the issues so badly that confusion would seem to reign supreme! It was bad enough trying to sort out the arguments—as reflected in the court decisions—in the Sabangan v Powell case about the so-called “stateless kids.” But when those questions get mixed together with the “Dekada” issue, trying to untangle all the rhetoric gets more than a little complicated.

The two issues are NOT related. The “Dekada” effort—on the part of foreign workers who have lived in the CNMI for more than five years and are seeking some form of “permanent residence” status—is not about where or when those workers were born. Nor is it—at least not yet—about citizenship. Rather, it is about human beings trying to earn for themselves something other than indentured servant status, something other than a condition where they often have no choice of employer (being hired sight unseen), where they are forced to work where and when and as long as their employer dictates, where there is no chance to acquire job security, where they are not free—except with endless red tape—to change jobs, to move up to better jobs, or to ask for—or be given—a raise. It is about the freedom to work as an individual—something to which every human being should be entitled—rather than being treated as little more than a warm body to be tossed around and dictated to by tedious, impersonal, and burdensome government rules and regulations.

Instead of ranting and raving about consequences that could occur if the “Dekada” people achieved their purpose—one writer even compared it to a judge deciding that half of Mexico be granted U.S. citizenship, of all things!—the CNMI should take the initiative here, and come up with its own solution to the problem, rather than letting the U.S. make that decision for the CNMI. After all, the CNMI has the right to control its own immigration and naturalization.

What would happen if the CNMI passed legislation to provide that eligible foreign workers would no longer be required to meet the Department of Labor procedural rules but would be free to work as “free agents”? The CNMI could define who would be eligible for “free agent” status, and could also define what other entitlements such a person would be given. Since there is, apparently, no universally-accepted definition of “permanent resident,” the CNMI would not have to grapple with “permanent residence” per se. It could devise some subset thereof that would satisfy the “Dekada” group—without giving them full rights as citizens of the CNMI.

Taking the initiative, defining for itself just how such a program would work and what it would entail, would seem a far more reasonable approach than writing angry letters and sitting back to let the INS, or the State Department, take the lead. By doing so, the CNMI could respond to what are legitimate concerns of the “Dekada” group on its own terms, and could as well, show itself to be both compassionate and respectful of human dignity.

I must admit I do think that it is a little too aggressive, if you will, for the group to advocate a change of status for those who’ve only worked in the CNMI for five years. Ten years, on the other hand, would seem an eminently reasonable qualification.

As for the “stateless” group, it would appear as though those writing the opinions for the court ignored some of the Covenant’s finer points—i.e., the discussions as to whether Covenant Article 301 and Article 501 are contradictory, whether one makes the other extraneous, when which one went into effect, etc. A distinction that does not seem to have been made very clearly, however, is that Section 501, which states that Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution (dealing with citizenship) applies to the CNMI, went into effect long before the end of the Trusteeship in 1986.

The “stateless” group, moreover, deals with people who were born in the CNMI. The “Dekada” group does not. The issues—and the facts—are separate and distinct. While it is true, as attorneys for the U.S. government argue, that the Sabangan decision does not include any restrictions upon those being granted citizenship, it is also true that the 300 or so involved in the “stateless” group have already proved themselves to be responsible, mature and dependable—just by the very nature of the dignified and effective campaign they have conducted in trying to resolve their situation.

The argument that they will have become citizens before any of the rest of the people in the CNMI simply doesn’t make sense. They will have become citizens in 2004. That is a good 26 years later than did the people of the CNMI. Another argument that doesn’t make sense is that because the people of the CNMI waited 10 years, they should wait at least that long. Yet they have already waited 20+ years—which should be enough.

One more argument that doesn’t make a lot of sense is that the Sabangan decision will open the floodgates to all the children born to foreign workers between 1978 and 1986. It should be pointed out, however, that between 1978 and 1986, CNMI labor and immigration laws were very restrictive, and few foreign workers were eligible to bring in even their spouse, much less any other family members. The numbers of children born to foreign workers during those years cannot be very large.

Let us hope that the State Department lets the decision of the 9th Circuit Court stand, so that, finally, the members of the “stateless” group will be able to resume their education, and their aspirations for the future.

Let us hope, as well, that reason and logic prevail.

Ruth L. Tighe

Tanapag