On My Mind

There’s probably a pithy saying to describe people who argue by belittling their opponent rather than by defending the merits of their case—as politicians running for office do all the time—but when the tactic is used for a supposedly non-political issue, and for one as out of the ordinary as the recently proposed “safe haven” program, such tactics can only be described as mean-spirited, under-handed and counter-productive.

The issue is not, as soon-to-be ex-Attorney General Pam Brown would have one believe, a personal vendetta against her by re-elected Sen. Pete P. Reyes. The senator is absolutely right in his contention that the proposed “safe haven” regulations were sneakily introduced—one has but to look at the table of contents of the Commonwealth Register in which they appear, where only, “Public Notice of Proposed Immigration Regulation Sections 706(S) and 1402, [issued by] the Office of the Attorney General/Division of Immigration” is listed. There’s not a clue that what is actually being proposed is a “safe haven program for international victims of human trafficking and forced prostitution, particularly ethnic Vietnamese living in the Kingdom of Cambodia,” as it is described within the proposed regulations themselves.

It is also sneaky (not to mention devious, deceptive and dishonorable), as the senator has said, that while the proposed regulations are open for comment until Dec. 25—and if revision takes place, must then once again be published in the Register—the first group of these victims is allegedly due to arrive in the CNMI on Dec. 19.

Moreover, the Attorney General is now reported to have, as the senator claimed from the beginning, “expressed [her] desire to continue working under the anti-human trafficking program her office is trying to establish.”

The senator is also correct in arguing that the scheme, as presently envisioned, is poorly thought-out, and offers little benefit to either the CNMI or to the victims themselves. Nor, it should be pointed out, are these arguments being made only by Sen. Reyes. The problems with the proposal are not only many, but severe.

* * *

To begin with, victims of human trafficking and forced prostitution can be found in many countries. What rationale was used, and by whom, to determine that only Vietnamese—and at that, only Vietnamese found in Cambodia—should be offered safe haven in the CNMI? The CNMI was obviously picked because it controls its own immigration, but it almost amounts to an abuse of the Covenant to apply that provision to the facilitation, in effect, of the immigration into the CNMI of undocumented alien children—be they victims or not.

While the program ostensibly covers children from 8-16 years of age, the regulations state that once the victims reach 16, they will no longer be protected under the program. So what happens to them then? The regulations don’t say.

The victims will be allowed into the CNMI on 90-day visitor entry permits which may be renewed at the discretion of the Attorney General for up to one year, and are renewable at the discretion of the Attorney General thereafter. If, however, the intent is to truly rehabilitate these children, much more than three months will be required. In fact, it could take several years. Yet the regs offer no assurance that the amount of time needed will be provided.

The proposed regs state that the total number of children permitted to enter will be 30 at any one time. But there’s nothing about what the total cap will be—it has been said that up to 400 would be admitted altogether.

There is no mention of who will provide the required “infrastructure”—from teachers, foster parents and mental health and social workers, to medical facilities, housing, and athletic facilities for the victims—though video-teleconferencing is mentioned as the major educational strategy in a web posting by the U.S. International Mission, the not-for-profit institution involved in this scheme.

Interestingly enough, while there is talk of filming aspects of this unorthodox proposal as a documentary—itself an exploitation of these victims?—there is no mention of what the ultimate goal or purpose is. Totally absent is any expression of intent to rehabilitate these victims, to educate them, to restore their health, to help them become productive members of society (much less to teach them English!)—which one would think would be the underlying purpose of the whole thing.

So—who does it serve? Not the children. Nor the CNMI, despite protestations that it will give the CNMI a good name. Like the 9/11 silver coins, like the maharishi’s “Peace World,” or whatever it was, this proposal has all the earmarks of a scam that will only make the CNMI a laughing stock once again.

* * *

On the other hand, as a more benevolently-minded soul has said, there is a need to help such children, and there is apparently substantial funding available to do so. But you’d have to start over—put the idea out to the public and gain its support, develop rational parameters, obtain reputable and experienced participants, put the project together step by step, openly and judiciously, plan for the long term. It could, perhaps, be put on Rota, for example, possibly even with as many as 100 girls at a time. That way, maybe it could work, maybe it would contribute to the economy, maybe it could represent another aspect of an “education industry” for the CNMI.

But that is not how this venture began, it is not what this particular scheme proposes, nor is it what the proposed regulations describe.

* * *

Short takes:

Lest I be quoted by the “wrong” side, I hereby recant my comment that since inadequately marked ballots are not the fault of the voter they should be counted. Clearly, ballots without any postmark whatsoever should not be counted. And apparently there was sufficient concern about the rest to justify their not being counted either.

* * *

It would be nice if the Ben and Tim duo adopted the approach promised by Heinz and Dave: good people would be retained in office regardless of their affiliation. Particularly as applied to the Public Auditor, as well as the Director of the Board of Elections, both of whom continue to maintain a high degree of integrity in often difficult and sometime frustrating positions. Two more whose retention would go a long way towards proving Ben and Tim’s support of environmental concerns are the present Administrator of the Coastal Resources Management Office and the Director of the Division of Environmental Quality. Both have succeeded in developing strong staff and sound, strong programs in support of environmental protection and have the respect of their peers as well as the community.

* * *

On the other hand, the “firing” of Vicky Benavente would seem reprehensible. The Marianas Visitors Authority director answers to its Board, and it should be up to the new Board—not yet constituted by the incoming administration—to decide whether the director should be replaced, not the outgoing board. Benavente has done a commendable job, and does not deserve such shabby treatment.

* * *

Innocent coincidence or something more nefarious? Bridge Capital LLC has applied for a qualifying certificate from the Commonwealth Development Authority, and now something called Bridgecreek International is reportedly going to help the long-floundering efforts by J.G. Sablan to mine Pagan’s pozzolan ash. At least I know I’m not paranoid—a call to CDA indicated that the question arose there as well, and the agency is looking into the relationship.

* * *

Certainly user-unfriendly, if not nefarious, is the decision by the Bank of Guam to issue transaction slips from its newly installed ATM in Garapan that look just like an ordinary grocery receipt. No more distinctively green proofs of deposit or withdrawal, that stand out on a desk, in a wallet, or wherever else one stashes such things. Now they just get lost among all the rest.

* * *

Why is it that law officers nowadays seem to have only one response to trouble: shoot to kill? Is it that they’re not able to stop someone by a shot in the shoulder or leg? That they can’t be relied upon to be good marksmen? Do they take life so lightly? Twice in just the past week, the papers have carried stories of law officers—one here on Saipan, the other on the mainland—fatally shooting people who needed only to be stopped, not killed. Admittedly the trend is widespread. The question, though, is: was that death really necessary? Couldn’t the cops, marshals, armed guards be better trained, so that they disable, rather than kill, those by whom they feel threatened?

* * *

More upbeat: I heartily endorse the letter written by Ciara C. Maratita in this past Wednesday’s Marianas Variety, in which she protests the unregulated use of ear-splitting bomb-like firecrackers in erstwhile peaceful villages on island. I don’t mind firecrackers either, but these randomly exploded bomb-like ones, that sound like gunfire or worse, make even the neighborhood cats jump, much less the people around them. So far, the CNMI has withstood the ban on fireworks so prevalent elsewhere. But these noisemakers seriously disturb the peace, and should be banned for the good of all.

* * *

Congratulations to James Livingston, chief of the Office of Attorney General Civil Division, and Kenneth Barden, assistant attorney general, in getting the CNMI’s fight to retain control of its submerged lands before the U.S. Supreme Court! According to a report in last Friday’s Saipan Tribune, the Court hasn’t agreed to hear the case yet, but at least it has asked the U.S. Department of Justice to file a response to a petition, by the CNMI, for review and reversal of an adverse appellate ruling. That’s a very positive first step!

* * *

Movie ratings for this coming week: 6 “PG-13’s,” 1 “PG.” Assuming the restrictions are enforced, still doesn’t offer young kids much to look at…

(The writer is a librarian by profession, and a long-term resident of the CNMI. To contact her, send e-mail to ruth.tighe@vzpacifica.net)