Questions that needs hard answers

By PETE P. REYES

I write to respond to, among other things, Mr. Ambrose Bennett’s recent letter to the editor in which he stated his support for the safe haven regulations. As an elected leader, my job is made considerably easier when constituents take the time to voice their opinions. So a “thank you very much” to Mr. Bennett for taking the time to make your opinion known.

And si yuus maase to the many people who have taken the time to make their opposition to this scheme known by signing the petition that has been circulating. I will give them to Deputy Attorney General Clyde Lemons at the public hearing scheduled for Dec. 29, 2005, at 6pm at the Multi-Purpose Center. You are all encouraged to attend! Incidentally, I learned from Mr. Lemons that it is extremely rare for more than a handful of people to comment on proposed regulations. If we only could get 200 citizens (and we’re half way there already!) to voice their opposition to this plan by signing the petition, that would have to be considered nothing less than a resounding “No” from the people!

I respectfully disagree with the contention that the CNMI could be used as a short-term holding area for these girls as they await adoption. Our adoption laws (validly enacted by elected representatives of the people, rather than shadily foisted upon us by appointed officials accountable to nobody) require that only residents can adopt residents (except for customary adoptions). And a resident is a person who has lived here for at least a year.

So these girls will obviously be here a whole lot longer than 90 days, once you realize that the girl must legally live here for a year at the very least before she could be adopted. Also, the adoptive parents must move here for a year before they can adopt one of these girls. As a practical matter, a girl will have to be here for what every thinking person knows is a considerable amount of time as she gets rehabilitated (Who knows how long that will take) enough to decide if she wants to get adopted or go home. And then, after she makes her decision, a suitable parent will have to move here for a year.

Mr. Bennett may be forgiven for believing it is possible to keep them here for a shorter period of time, since he has been fed nothing but the “it’s only 90 days” lie from the person responsible for sneaking this by all of us. This whole process will obviously take years, not months, unless of course the administration was planning on breaking even more laws to shove this plan down from on high. And speaking of lies, weren’t we told by the administration that the U.S. government supported the plan already? Then why did I read in today’s paper that the U.S. government is still investigating and considering the regulations? Someone has lied to us (again), and I’m certain it isn’t the respected and honorable Mr. Cohen.

I have to believe in my heart that since this scheme is propped up with lie after lie, it cannot be a good idea at all. And I do not appreciate it one bit when the Commonwealth government lies to the people.

I do appreciate Mr. Bennett’s attempt to discuss this on a higher level of economic thought, though I admit that I didn’t quite grasp all of his letter. But it is refreshing when one compares it to the level of argument from the few, especially in the press, who support the plan. Knowing they can’t win by arguing that the regulations are thorough or well thought-out or in the CNMI’s best interest, they accuse us of being a “Grinch.”

I would not deserve to be a senator if my sole justification for action or inaction on this scheme is “because it’s Christmas.” If we do this “because it’s Christmas,” we will certainly regret it by Covenant Day.

The other rationale bandied about by USIM’s attorney is that we should do this “because we can.” Can we really assume responsibility for the lives of these girls when we are having difficulty keeping our lights on? We are having trouble setting taxi rates and we’re going to assume the responsibilities and burdens of providing for these girls? Our government has not proven itself able to pass a budget and we’re going to bite off even more responsibility? We are having a difficult time adequately funding our own Public School System for our own residents, and we’re going to focus our energies on setting up—from scratch—a whole new system for foreigners? I could go on and on.

Maybe we could do it if the economy was pretty darn good, but we all know it hasn’t been and isn’t. So, can we really do this?

Claims have been made that this won’t cost us anything. I disagree. This was designed to cost the Commonwealth money and resources. Had the AGO gotten its way, the children would have arrived on Dec. 18. With no passports or identity papers (increased hassle for Labor), with no school set up for them (would have had to have used PSS) and none of the volunteer doctors licensed to practice here (would have had to have use CHC). Maybe costs go down when you plan on breaking every law that stands in the way.

I have a few legal questions that I will ask the Attorney General’s Office at the public hearing. I assume they can be readily answered on the spot, since the Babauta administration obviously thought this through and considered the legalities and technicalities before springing this on the people, right? I would like to urge all concerned citizens, both supporters and opponents of this plan, to attend the public hearing, so they will see first-hand how prepared the government is before it springs this on us all. I have a feeling a lot of our questions will go unanswered. Perhaps all of them will. Maybe, if we’re lucky, they’ll do nothing but listen to the people for once.

I do not know what will happen to these regulations. Perhaps the Attorney General’s Office will hold the hearing and then implement the regulations the very next day. These girls could be here in early January, with us completely unprepared. I do not know what the Brown administration has decided. I do know that the choice should not be Pam Brown’s. The choice is ours. The people should decide.

(Pete P. Reyes is a senator for Saipan and is minority leader of the 14th Senate. )