March 27, 2010
You have known me to be frank and outspoken. I don’t want addressing issues to Cinta Kaipat anymore because…For everyone who is still "confused" and wondering if they should continue to go to DOL, Federal Ombudsman Pamela Brown said that the federal government will NOT recognize the foreign national identification cards that the CNMI DOL proposed in an attempt to control the foreign employment and take more money from foreign nationals. Again, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS IN CHARGE OF IMMIGRATION AND FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT MATTERS. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL NOT RECOGNIZE FOREIGN NATIONAL IDS.
I have these observations and questions:
1) During the forum at PIC hosted by SHRM last March 19, 2010, the AG handed to the attendees (I was one of them) a thread of e-mails. One e-mail came from ICE requesting the CNMI-DOL (addressed actually to Jeff Camacho) to revoke the permit of such holder due to committing a criminal offense. Jeff Camacho sent you an e-mail stating “Boss, ___________ (this line was erased/covered with black marker) ___________. What do you think? ICE is asking US to revoke his permit. But Ms. Brown is saying that our permit can’t be revoked. HELP!” (Mind you, help was capitalized!-looks like really need BIG help).
My question: if Cinta Kaipat is the deputy secretary, why Jeff Camacho didn’t ask help from her but instead from you? Why are you being called “Boss”? Is our assumption correct, that you are the one manipulating the CNMI-DOL? How come they keep on saying, they will revoke the umbrella permit, when this e-mails clearly show the CNMI-DOL doesn’t even know WHEN and to WHAT circumstances they can actually revoke?
2) Cinta Kipat said there were about 200 umbrella permits that had been revoked and were already referred to ICE. Really? On what grounds? Then how about this statement from her (but I think, this statement came from you): “If a worker has not found employment for 6 months, the likelihood of locating employment in the future is very low and we are not required to allow that person to keep a permit over the long term.”
My question: If the umbrella permits were revoked this March 2010, it is not even 4 months yet, counting from November 2009. Pretending you have the authority to revoke the permit, your mathematics is poor. The sixth month after November 2009 is May 2010. Pretending again, you didn’t miscalculate, did the 200 umbrella permit holders all committed criminal offenses? Does DOC have a record?
3) The way the feds considered the umbrella permit is actually similar to what you were offering to us last Nov. 20 and 27, 2009. The “service provider” category. (Don’t tell me you can’t offer anything because you are a volunteer. The CNMI-DOL is relying on your HELP and you are called Boss). You were aware that I strongly disagreed with this one because we know you could not issue permits anymore and besides, accepting this would restrict us from our freedom of speech, press and assembly.
My question: Why does the CNMI DOL disagree with the feds, now that the feds are saying that umbrella permit holders can work “freely” until 2011, which is similar to the free labor market you were offering on the “service provider”? Is it because guest workers are no longer under the control of CNMI DOL?
MALOU H. BERUECO