Lawmakers mixed on federalization lawsuit

Lawmakers are split on the governor’s plan to sue the U.S. government over the immigration “federalization” law.

Members of the House of Representatives failed to reach an agreement yesterday on whether to adopt a resolution backing Gov. Benigno R. Fitial on his efforts to stop the federal government from taking control of local immigration.

After a lengthy debate, the House decided to refer the resolution to the House Judiciary and Government Operations for further review.

Reps. Stanley T. Torres, Victor Hocog, Oscar M. Babauta, Francisco Dela Cruz, and Raymond Palacios co-sponsored the resolution.

The document echoes the concerns expressed by Fitial about the potential impact of the new immigration law on the Commonwealth’s economy, and in particular, the ability of local businesses to hire foreign workers under the federalized immigration system.

It also commends Fitial for seeking legal advice from an independent law firm before making a final decision on whether to bring the lawsuit to the federal courts.

Rep. Heinz Hofschneider was the first to speak on the House floor about the resolution. He said the CNMI government should exhaust diplomatic means before considering legal action. He added that the lawsuit has little chance of success and might end up backfiring against the Commonwealth.

“Even if we win, we still lose,” Hofschneider said. “Assuming the court sides with the CNMI government, it will at the minimum send the law back to the U.S. Congress and tell the congressmen to be fair and subject the Commonwealth to immigration laws that apply to everyone else. This lawsuit, instead of protecting the spirit of the Covenant, will end dismantling it.”

Rep. Diego Benavente said it is premature to file the lawsuit. “If we’re not challenging the U.S. government’s authority to apply federal immigration to us, then what are we challenging exactly? The provision on foreign workers will not go into effect in five years, maybe more. We don’t even know how it will apply exactly since the regulations are still being drafted.”

Benavente also lashed at the Fitial administration for the often-antagonistic way it dealt with the U.S. government while the bill was being drafted. “Perhaps, the reason we cannot take the diplomatic avenue now is because the administration does not have a good relationship with its federal counterpart,” he said.

Rep. Joseph Reyes said his main concern is the cost of litigation. He also raised concern about the fact that unidentified private individuals are funding the legal review being done by the U.S. law firm, Jenner & Block.

Rep. Tina Sablan echoed Reyes’ sentiment and called on the House JGO Committee to investigate whether it is legal for the CNMI government to accept private funding for the lawsuit.

Hocog, who had signed the resolution, admitted to having mixed feelings about the resolution after hearing his colleagues’ arguments.

Rep. Joseph Deleon Guerrero is one of the two members who spoke in favor of the governor’s plan. He said there is merit to Fitial’s arguments about the Commonwealth’s right to self-government and the economic impact of the immigration law.

“It’s not a matter of federalization ‘potentially’ having an adverse impact on the economy. It ‘will’ have an impact. And although there are some things that may be negotiated during the drafting of the regulations, there are a lot of things that cannot be changed,” Guerrero said.

He also approved of the governor’s decision to hire an independent law firm to review the case before filing it.

For his part, Dela Cruz played down what the resolution was trying to express. He said the document is not urging for a lawsuit, it is only calling for more study.

Signed in May 2008, the new immigration law will go into full effect in mid-2009.