‘FSM citizens can be deported’

The Superior Court ruled yesterday that citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia are subject to immigration laws of the CNMI and therefore can be deported.

Associate Judge David A. Wiseman said the Compact of Free Association Act (Compact) does not exempt FSM citizens from the CNMI’s non-discriminatory Immigration limitation.

Wiseman said the CNMI, by virtue of the Covenant, has been granted nearly plenary authority over its own immigration.

“In exercising this authority, the CNMI has passed legislation limiting the ability of ‘aliens’ to remain in the CNMI by making deportable all aliens who have been convicted of two or more misdemeanors or one or more felonies,” he said.

Wiseman issued such ruling in his order finding FSM citizen Douglas A. Phillip a deportable alien, pursuant to the law. Phillip has been convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon, which is a felony offense.

The judge cited that, since Phillip is an FSM citizen and is classified as an alien, he is subject to the immigration laws of the CNMI governing deportation.

“Those who have committed serious crimes such as felonies or multiple misdemeanors have already adversely impacted the CNMI in numerous ways, and have demonstrated that they are unwilling to participate in the essential social contract which ensures the rule of law in Saipan,” he said.

Wiseman said “it is fair and lawful that the CNMI should be able to expel even Compact state members who have broken CNMI laws, without offense to the tenets and policies of the Compact.”

Court records show that the Division of Immigration filed a deportation case against Phillip on grounds that he was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon.

During the March 9, 2006 hearing, Immigration, through the Attorney General’s Office, presented evidence proving that the respondent is an FSM citizen and was convicted of a felony.

Pursuant to the statute, being convicted of two or more misdemeanors or one felony is grounds for deportation of an alien from the CNMI.

Phillip, through counsel, argued that CNMI immigration laws do not apply to him because he is a citizen of a state that formerly held a status as a Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands when it was in existence.

The respondent asserted that the definition of “alien” specifically exempts citizens of the TTPI from “alien” status.

Wiseman said that Phillip carries an FSM passport, which supports the conclusion that he is not a citizen of the CNMI or the United States, but of the FSM.

Secondly, the judge noted, the respondent is also neither a citizen nor a permanent resident of the NMI.

“Consequently, by process of elimination, respondent must be classified as an alien, subject to the immigration laws of the Commonwealth if he is not a citizen of the TTPI,” he said.

In 1994, the Republic of Palau became an independent sovereign, completing the TTPI’s gradual dissolution into several sovereign states and autonomous territories, which enjoy different relationships with the United States

The CNMI, a former TTPI member, became a territory of the United States through the Covenant, and enjoys a relatively close relationship of governance with the United States.

Other former TTPI members, such as the FSM and Palau, enjoy a different status as Freely Associated States, which enjoy a significantly greater degree of sovereignty and bear a much looser affiliation with the United States than the CNMI.

Reasonable logic and sense dictates that, with the dissolution of the TTPI and its reorganization into separate political entities, its citizenry dissolved along with it and emerged as separate citizenries of each emerging body, Wiseman said.

Therefore, the judge said, although Phillip has citizenship in a federation of a group of islands that once shared Trust Territory status with the islands of the CNMI, he may no longer claim exception to the immigration laws in the CNMI, now that the trust territory status has dissolved.

Phillip had also argued that, despite the dissolution of the TTPI, it is still the Legislature’s intent to preserve the exemption for those who live on territories formerly constituting the TTPI, unless the Legislature acts to affirmatively dispense of such exemption.

Wiseman said, though, that the respondent’s argument is unpersuasive because it assumes that a legislature must affirmatively act to effectuate its intent, while such a presumption has never been the case.

“The Legislature, by its silence, has declined to make such a change, and this court will impose no distortion of its own,” he said.

Phillip argued that, since federal funding of the CNMI is heavily tied to the Compacts, it supports his contention that the Legislature intended that the exemption for citizens of TTPI to apply to citizens of islands that once were territories of the TTPI.

But Wiseman said such argument is inherently flawed.

Wiseman said mere inaction by the Legislature does not suggest that the Legislature intends a statute to expand to accommodate significant political changes.