"Never under any condition should this nation look at an immigrant as primarily a labor unit. He should always be looked at primarily as a future citizen." -Theodore Roosevelt, 1917
"It is not possible to be in favor of justice for some people and not be in favor of justice for all people." -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Isaona i tumungo’ ya ha sedi, ki ayo i mismo umisagui hao. Greater is the fault of he who allows the injustice upon himself. " -Chamorro proverb
"There can be no tyrants where there are no slaves." -Jose Rizal
"I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." -Bishop Desmond Tutu
Disclaimer: This is not a legal blog. No opinion or statement should be perceived as legal advice. All posts are the opinion of the author or contributors who are expressing their First Amendment Rights.
While CNMI legislators appear to be ignoring skyrocketing crime and overwhelming economic problems that are devastating the CNMI, now comes Rota Rep. Teresita Santos introducing a bill to criminalize libel in the CNMI.
H.B. 17-191, The CNMI Criminal Libel Act of 2011, proposes a fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than six months, or both, for violation of the law.
Of course it is impossible to locate the bill online because the Legislature's website leaves a lot to be desired.
HB 17-191 says the easy transfer of information over the Internet in real time and through a majority of locations throughout the world has opened both opportunities and problems.
The freshman lawmaker's bill also cites the explosion of e-groups, blogs, message boards, chat rooms, and other forums where people share facts, views, and opinions.
“Hiding behind a veil of anonymity, it's not uncommon to see people's reputations trashed on the Web. In general, Web libel is posting false information about someone that defames them, commonly accusations of criminal acts, marital infidelity, dishonesty, or that individuals have a nasty disease. Until recently, there was not much that you could do to protect your good name on the Web, but that's changing,” Santos said in her bill.
The bill defines libel as “a malicious defamation, expressed either by writing, printing, or by signs or pictures, or by electronic means on the Internet, electronic bulleting board, chat room, message board, or other place, or the like, to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation, or publish the natural or alleged defects, of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.”
Under the bill, no reporter, editor, or proprietor of any newspaper is liable for any prosecution for a fair and true report of any judicial, legislative, or other public official proceedings, or of any statement, speech, argument, or debate in the course of the same, “except upon proof of malice in making such report, which shall not be implied from the mere fact of publication.”
But it also says there is limitation on the privilege in reporting public proceedings.
“Libelous remarks or comments connected with matter privileged by the last section receive no privilege by reason of their being so connected,” the bill adds.
Truth and justice are revealed through the exchange of opposing ideas and opinions, but apparently some object to some bloggers and anonymous commenters who post their opinions on blogs and on the Marianas Variety's online edition.
Rep. Stanley Torres reportedly supports the bill and told a Marianas Variety reporter, " Santos must also have her own bad experiences with Variety online commentators."
He added that he will "ask her to make specific preference to online commentators and suggest a provision that will require this newspaper to reveal their real names."
A law could require a newspaper to reveal the names of posters most likely could be challenged in court. Most intelligent people can weed through online comments and see who is contributing to the conversation, who is posting nonsense, who has a political agenda, and who is a truth-bender.
Perhaps the bill should be titled the Suppression of the First Amendment, The Kill Freedom of Speech Law, or Stop the Criticism Act.
I am certain that slander and libel laws already exist in the CNMI, although it would be hard to check since the CNMI is probably the only U.S. locality that doesn't post its laws online.
Commenters post anonymously because they fear retaliation. That fear is real in the CNMI where jobs are political gifts that can be taken back at will, officials freely violate the Open Government Act with no consequences, and corruption is commonplace.
Like some libel suits, this legislation appears to be introduced for the purpose of silencing certain speakers or specific speech. Beware whistle blowers. Those wishing to silence the opposition or freedom of speech are dangerous to basic democratic principles.
Two missing sisters. Photo from the Marianas Variety
May 26, 2011
Two sweet-faced sisters left their grandparent's house in As Teo Wednesday morning around 6:00 am to walk to their school bus stop near their residence. Faloma and Maleina Luhk never made it to Kagman Elementary School and have been missing ever since.
The grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Elbert Quitugua, filed a missing persons report when the children did not return from school. A press release from the Governor's Office stated that a witness saw them around 6:10 am sitting across from the bus stop.
The press release states that "anyone with information leading to the whereabouts of these two young girls are encouraged to call 911 or Crime Stoppers at 234-7272 should you want to remain anonymous. Or use the website at www.nmicrimestoppers.com."
Joaquin Hackie Tenorio who made a gruesome death threat against Rabby Syed on February 26, 2011, denied making the threat when he appeared before Superior Court presiding Judge Robert C Naraja. He entered a not guilty plea through Public Defender Richard Miller.
Kudos to Chief Prosecutor Michael Ernest for investigating and charging 22-year-old Tenorio with one count of assault and one count of disturbing the peace.
Rabby, Ronnie Doca and several members of the United Workers Movement were at a meeting when Tenorio's aunt called Rabby. Rabby put the call on speaker phone and another UWM officer taped the conversation with his cell phone.
I have a MP3 copy of the conversation and a copy was given to the FBI.
During the call, Tenorio's aunt, who identified herself as Juanita from San Roque asked Rabby to accept an apology. She admitted in the call that Ed Mendiola from San Roque got Rabby's number from the newspaper and convinced her nephew, Joaquin Tenorio, to call and threaten Rabby using the land phone in her house. She even put her nephew on the phone who admitted that he threatened Rabby and used the name "Norita" as the caller.
The aunt told Rabby that she "scolded him" (her nephew) and told him "watch out, you can go to jail."
During the call she told Rabby that her nephew was with her and he wanted to talk to Rabby. She put Tenorio on the phone. He told Rabby, "I'm very sorry for the threat that I gave you."
When Tenorio threatened to chop off Rabby's hands and feet and kill him Rabby's cell phone (which recorded the land line number) was on speaker and Rabby's wife heard the threat.
The defendant is unwise to deny making the threat when he admitted to Rabby that he was the one who made the threat, the aunt admitted that he made the threat, Rabby's wife heard him make the threat as the call was put on speaker, and the UWM officers listened to the admissions when Rabby wisely put the call from the aunt and Tenorio on speaker. My goodness, the evidence is overwhelming, this guy should admit his guilt and suffer the consequences.
The U.S. Department of Interior has issued a press release announcing the expansion of the role of Federal Ombudsman Pamela Brown. The ombudsman will be working in Guam as well as in the CNMI addressing issues related to nonresident workers and human trafficking. Pam Brown is in Guam meeting with officials from DOI, Guam and federal agencies.
This is a welcome move by DOI!
The press release from DOI:
WASHINGTON, D.C.-Assistant Secretary of the Interior Tony Babauta, during a meeting with US Attorney Alicia Limtiaco in Guam yesterday, discussed plans to expand the responsibilities of the Interior Department's Northern Marianas Islands Federal Ombudsman to include Guam. The Federal Ombudsman, Pamela Brown, was present for the meeting between Babauta and Limtiaco.
“Initially, I have asked Ombudsman Brown to work closely with USAG Limtiaco in her efforts to raise the awareness of human trafficking issues for the Marianas Archipelago. Even without the realigning of U.S. military forces in the Pacific, there is a growing concern with all types of human trafficking both internationally and domestically which cannot be tolerated by our communities,” Babauta said.
The Obama Administration stepped up its efforts to raise awareness and to address human trafficking. In its 2010 Trafficking in Persons Report, the Administration reported on human trafficking for the first time in the United States and its insular areas. In response to that report, President Obama established the Senior Policy Operating Group on Anti-trafficking in Persons, which Babauta was appointed to last year. Further, the report recommended that in order to better combat human trafficking, the United States needed to intensify enforcement and workers rights infrastructure, such as ombudsman offices, in insular areas. Expansion of the Northern Marianas Ombudsman's responsibilities to the entire archipelago is the first step in the adoption of that recommendation.
“Since becoming the regional USAG Limtiaco has provided training to law enforcement community in combating human trafficking and to the community to raise awareness of the issues of human trafficking. Officially adding Ms. Brown will supplement her efforts,” Babauta said.
Brown provides alien workers with the opportunity to state claims, including human trafficking, to a federal official who can then assist the workers in the appropriate handling of such claims by a local or federal agency. Since the office opened, her office has assisted about 10,000 individuals with such claims. Of this number, some 320 have been identified as human trafficking victims.
Brown was the first Federal Ombudsman in the CNMI, establishing the Northern Marianas Ombudsman's office in early 1999. In 2002, Pam left the office to work in the administration of former governor Juan N. Babauta, becoming the CNMI Attorney General. Under her tenure, she was responsible for labor and immigration enforcement as well as lead negotiator for the establishment of the first refugee protection program in the CNMI as part of the United States' international treaty obligations. Just prior to returning to the Ombudsman position in 2009, Brown served for a year as executive director of an Orange County, California NGO combating trafficking in S.E. Asia. (DOI)
Today the Variety has a story quoted a source who states that Buckingham did indeed force Ernest to resign on May 17th. The newspaper states:
“Ernest did resign in lieu of being terminated. Buckingham then offered the position of chief to several other members of the criminal division, all of whom declined. On [May 18], after being criticized by other attorneys in the office, Buckingham offered Ernest his job back. Ernest accepted the position back later in the day,” the source said.
The source added that the assistant attorneys general did not threaten to resign if Ernest was not rehired, as earlier reported by the Variety.
“The attitude of the criminal division attorneys regarding Ernest’s termination was one of fear for their own jobs, not anger about losing Mr. Ernest as their chief.
“These facts can be confirmed by members of the criminal division. Everyone is scared to tell the truth because the AG will terminate them for exposing his lies to the public,” the source said.
“If the highest legal officer is willing to lie to the public about petty internal conflicts, he is willing to lie to the public about anything,” the source added.
The story points out that 11 assistant attorneys have resigned or been fired since Buckingham took the position of Attorney General and “has burned through at least nine chiefs of the civil and criminal divisions. Most resignations occur only under threat of termination by [Buckingham] himself.”
Who needs a liar as an Attorney General? Who needs a law breaker as an Attorney General? He stood on the wrong side of the law during massage-gate and he blatantly violated federal election law during election-gate. Yet, somehow got away with it. Sickening.
The problem is not just the questionable acts of the Attorney General, but the lack of courage of the assistant attorneys. I have to wonder what is so great about a job that a person would cover up for a boss who is a liar. Why would any employee, especially an attorney, protect the improper behavior of his/her boss especially when that boss holds a position of power and authority? If something corrupt or questionable is happening at my workplace I would expose it, regardless of threats or retaliatory actions. To do otherwise is to condone the inappropriate behavior. The people within the Office of the Attorney General should be the torch bearers of justice, and yet they remain silent about lies. Not cool.
Now because no Tinian Dynasty Casino revenue is filling Tinian's coffers and it looks like Tinian Casino Commissioners and municipal employees won't be getting their pay anytime soon, Tinian officials finally have taken notice of the fact that the casino has failed. In fact, it is most likely going bankrupt, if it is not bankrupt already.
For months some of us have been screaming for action because the TINIAN DYNASTY HAS NOT PAYING ITS EMPLOYEES! No one responded. But when it looks like Tinian municipal employees will not get paid, the Tinian legislators finally realize that this is a crisis. Get a clue. It has been a crisis for the nonresident workers and their families for MONTHS.
What is the message that Senate Vice President Jude Hofschneider, Rep. Henry San Nicolas, Rep. Trenton Conner and Mayor Ramon Dela Cruz are sending? It seems to be that casino commissioners and municipal employees/ money concerns are significant while the nonpayment of wages of the nonresident workers is not. Where was the outrage eight months ago; a year ago?
Hopefully, the U.S. Department of Labor will sue the Tinian Dynasty and get the wages stolen from the nonresident workers before it goes bankrupt. Some immediate action is in order!
Deanne Siemer, Governor Fitial’s "volunteer", filed a Reply to the Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in the FOIA lawsuit that Siemer and CNMI Attorney Teresa Kim filed against the Department of Interior and Ombudsman Pamela Brown.
It is an attempt to support Siemer’s vendetta against the Department of Interior and the Ombudsman’s Office that has been ongoing for at least 6 years. Siemer suggests that the ombudsman has a crystal ball, claiming that the Ombudsman Office destroyed unnecessary papers because the office staff somehow knew that there would be a FOIA request asking for them. I'm guessing the only thing any DOI official has ever been able to predict is more witch hunts and attacks by the Fitial Administration and CNMI DOL
The reply continually suggests that the intake papers were "federal records" although it is clear that they were intake forms used to create the federal report or record. Just like any notes written to create a final report, these forms were destroyed. In fact, they were destroyed before the FOIA request was filed.
The reply also suggests that the tallies of illegal aliens were inaccurate. Siemer states that Ombudsman Pam Brown's number of illegals was far less than the CNMI's number. Is she serious? The governor once shouted that protesting nonresidents were all illegals and told them to go home. DOL is constantly terminating labor cases and appeals and transferring the cheated workers' names to the illegal list the department then shares with ICE agents.
Siemer also stated that she felt the ombudsman listed too many aliens as being in the CNMI five or more years stating, "A significant incentive existed at the time of the census to report residence for five years or more because Ms. Brown has advocated and widely publicized a proposal to admit to U.S. citizenship all aliens in the Commonwealth who have resided there for five years."
Huh? Is Siemer suggesting that if the U.S. Congress granted status to all aliens who resided in the CNMI for five or more years that records to confirm the length of time that they have been in the CNMI would not be checked? Is this even a real argument?
Someone needs to ask the volunteer why she needs intake forms if the DOL already has statistics and data.
Read Siemer's latest filing:
Deportation Terminated
Since the federal government took control of immigration in the CNMI, the Fitial Administration's "volunteer" Deanne Siemer and former Department of Labor Deputy Secretary Kaipat have been hell bent on deporting legal nonresidents. They have had nonstop fights with the U.S. Department of Interior officials and DHS officials over who maintains control of permits and who is and is not legal.
From debates about umbrella permits to bragging about giving ICE "lists" of nonresidents who should be deported, these mean-spirited officials have relentlessly attacked nonresidents.
Umbrella permits were controversial from the beginning because they were intended to act as an immigration permit, but were issued by the Department of Labor in a plan devised by Deanne Siemer. Kaipat admitted that DOL had no written authority to issue the permits saying, "By making an informal agreement with the Division of Immigration, which is not in writing, Labor has not delegated any of its authority to the AG."
November 18, 2009 Attorney General Ed Buckingham issued a Delegation of Authority regarding umbrella permits, including umbrella permits for overstayers. Under that document, the Director of Immigration was authorized to issue permits to overstayers on a case-by-case-humanitarian reasons including duration of residency in the CNMI, existence of U.S. citizen dependents, and duration of out of status period.
Guest worker groups and the federal ombudsman were assisting overstayers with getting their umbrella permits processed.
On November 25, 2009 AG Buckingham issued a public notice granting "conditional umbrella permits" to 628 nonresidents labeled by DOL as overstayers. An "overstayer", by DOL's definition includes nonresidents with active labor and/or court cases and those who were robbed of wages by their unscrupulous employers. Apparently Siemer, Kaipat and Governor Fitial opposed his action, and on November 29, 2009 (after the federal law went into effect and the CNMI no longer had immigration authority) Buckingham and DOL issued a joint statement backtracking on the action. It was too late to take undo what had been done.
One nonresident worker, Danilo Rejano, who had been labeled as an "overstayer" by DOL, was arrested in November 2009 as he waited in line at DOL for an umbrella permit. He was jailed and then released by order of Superior Court Associate Judge Wiseman. His name was among those on AG Buckingham's list of nonresidents labeled as "overstayers" who were granted umbrella permits.
Attorney Stephen Woodruff defended Danilo Rejano who was referred to DHS for deportation. Judge Dayna Beamer of the U.S. immigration Court on Saipan terminated the deportation procedures.
The judge stated:
"The Court finds that the DHS's evidence when carefully considered, has less probative weight than Respondent's evidence. It does not effectively rebut Respondent's evidence at Exhibit 3, which stated that he was granted an umbrella permit that is still in effect. First, because the referenced joint statement was not provided, and second, because the list of names on the Department of Labor Certification of Illegal Status document was authored well after November 28, 2009 and was not otherwise verified as being accurate.
Therefore, the Court finds that the Respondent has demonstrated that he is not presently removable..."
Why would DHS consider any letter, document or correspondence provided by the CNMI DOL witch hunters to be accurate? Just like the FOIA case Siemer is pursuing, in this case the issue of time is a problem.
Attorney Woodruff told Unheard No More, "The significance of this decision is that Attorney General Buckingham's grant of status to so-called "overstayers" has full force and effect for all the persons on that list, notwithstanding the CNMI's decision not to further process the individuals on the list (and thus not to enforce the conditions) and notwithstanding post-federalization attempts by some in the CNMI government to weasel out of that action (and to attempt to continue to assert immigration authority after Congress had expressly taken that authority away)."
Three staffers from the U.S. House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs are visiting local and federal officials on Saipan. Two are among my favorite staffers on the Hill -Brian Modeste and Robert Schwalbach.
They announced that there will be a hearing this summer in July or August concerning federalization and P.L. 110-229. I will be there if it is held in Washington, DC.
I have been working on a report (an analysis and recommendations on H.R. 1466), which includes the need to grant the legal, long-term nonresident workers green cards and a pathway to citizenship. My work on the report and extensive time spent educating NGOs and officials on the plight of the CNMI's nonresidents and their families has taken me away from blogging, as some have noticed. Hopefully, we will realize positive results.
Rally to support the DREAM Act, 2010 Photo by W. L. Doromal
May 14, 2011
There are many excuses for not introducing long overdue legislation that would grant the legal, long-term CNMI nonresident workers green cards and a pathway to citizenship. The reality is that too many elected leaders are more concerned with getting re-elected than in doing what is right. As long as they think (not know, think) that the voters don't want the nonresident workers to gain political or social rights they will tiptoe around the issues and continue the excuses instead of introducing comprehensive legislation that reflects American values and democratic ideals. As long as they think that their constituents won't re-elect them if they support legislation that would give a voice to the voiceless legal nonresident workers, they will work to keep them in their current status, which is one small step up from slavery –– a disenfranchised majority.
At least some elected officials recognize that they are in office not to advance their political careers, but to serve the people and the country and to advance the principles on which our country was founded. On Thursday Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) was joined by Reps. Howard Berman (D-California), Luis Guittierez (D-Illinois), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) in reintroducing the Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House.
The bill passed the U.S. House last year, but died in a Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate just five votes short of the total needed to pass.
Under the legislation nonresidents could get legal status if:
They came to the United States when they were 15 or younger and have had a continuous presence in the states for at least five years;
They have good moral character;
They graduated from high school or obtained a GED;
They completed two years of college or military service in good standing.
Senator Durbin stated:
Our immigration laws prevent thousands of young people from fully contributing to our nation's future. These young people ... are American in every sense except their technical legal status. ...These children are tomorrow's doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen, firefighters, soldiers and senators, and we should give them the opportunity to reach their full potential."
One person who serves as an example of why our country should pass the DREAM Act is Anglelica Hernandez. She is this year's valedictorian at Arizona State University and she is an undocumented alien. She moved from Mexico to the United States with her mother and sister when she was 9-years-old to reunite with her father who was working in Arizona. She is just one of hundreds of thousands who would be given a chance for U.S. citizenship if the bill passes.
H.R. 2709, The Reuniting Families Act, H.R. was introduced on May 8, 2011 by Rep. Mike Honda (D-California). The bill was introduced to keep all families together and includes a provision that would protect bi-national, same-sex couples and would allow for gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States. CNMI Congressman Gregorio Kilili Sablan co-sponsored this legislation.
The legislation addresses some critical issues by proposing to:
Recapture family and work visas that have gone unused and unclaimed due to bureaucratic delay;
Reduce the long backlog for families trying to reunite with their loved ones by classifying lawful permanent resident spouses and children as “immediate relatives” and exempting them from numerical caps on family immigration;
Increase per-country limits from 7% to 10% so that nations with a higher demand for workers can better equip the American economy with talent;
Allow families to reunite in the face of numerous hardships, including family separation and death of a petitioner;
Provide equal treatment for all stepchildren and biological children under immigration laws
Recognize the sacrifices of our military by exempting children of World War II Filipino veterans from numerical caps; and
Allow family members to reunite despite bars to reentry.
“It’s to also tell our citizens and those with legal permanent resident status to be part of the movement for a comprehensive package for everyone in this country. I’d like to make sure that we just go through the arc once and just fix all the holes and make sure that this thing we call immigration system … is a better vessel for people that we’re trying to care of.”
Until comprehensive immigration reform can be passed, Honda called on Obama to issue a moratorium to stop the deportation of foreign nationals in same-sex unions who would eligible for married-based green cards if not for the Defense of Marriage Act.
“The president has at his disposal certain kinds of statutory existing powers that he can stay a deportation process,” Honda said. “He can put in a place a situation where folks will be held in abeyance and allowed to work and allowed to continue their lives until such time that we correct our immigration system.
Meanwhile the debate about granting lass than 16,000 LEGAL nonresidents of the CNMI green cards and a pathway to citizenship continues.
Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform in El Paso, Texas
Chamizal National Memorial El Paso, Texas
1:21 P.M. MDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, El Paso! (Applause.) Well, it is wonderful -- wonderful to be back with all of you in the Lone Star State. (Applause.) Everything is bigger in Texas. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you!
THE PRESIDENT: I love you back! (Applause.) Even the welcomes are bigger. (Applause.) So, in appreciation, I wanted to give a big policy speech outside on a really hot day. (Laughter.) Those of you who are still wearing your jackets, feel free to take them off. I hope everybody is wearing sunscreen.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We live here.
THE PRESIDENT: You say you live here? You don’t need it, huh? (Laughter.) Well, it is a great honor to be here. And I want to express my appreciation to all of you for taking the time to come out today.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you!
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. (Applause.)
You know, about a week ago, I delivered a commencement address at Miami Dade Community College, which is one of the most diverse schools in the nation. The graduates were proud that their class could claim heritage from 181 countries around the world -- 181 countries. (Applause.)
Many of the students were immigrants themselves, coming to America with little more than the dream of their parents and the clothes on their back. A handful had discovered only in adolescence or adulthood that they were undocumented. But they worked hard and they gave it their all, and so they earned those diplomas.
And at the ceremony, 181 flags -- one for every nation that was represented -- was marched across the stage. And each one was applauded by the graduates and the relatives with ties to those countries. So when the Haitian flag went by, all the Haitian kids -- Haitian American kids shouted out. And when the Guatemalan flag went by, all the kids of Guatemalan heritage shouted out. And when the Ukrainian flag went by, I think one kid shouted out. (Laughter.) This was down in Miami. (Laughter.) If it had been in Chicago, there would have been more.
But then, the last flag, the American flag, came into view. And everyone in the room erupted in applause. Everybody cheered. (Applause.) So, yes, their parents and grandparents -- some of the graduates themselves -- had come from every corner of the globe. But it was here that they had found opportunity. It was here that they had a chance to contribute to the nation that is their home.
And it was a reminder of a simple idea, as old as America itself: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. We define ourselves as a nation of immigrants -- a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America’s ideals and America’s precepts. That’s why millions of people, ancestors to most of us, braved hardship and great risk to come here -- so they could be free to work and worship and start a business and live their lives in peace and prosperity. The Asian immigrants who made their way to California’s Angel Island. The German and Scandinavians who settled across the Midwest. The waves of Irish, and Italian, and Polish, and Russian, and Jewish immigrants who leaned against the railing to catch their first glimpse of the Statue of Liberty.
This flow of immigrants has helped make this country stronger and more prosperous. (Applause.) We can point to the genius of Einstein, the designs of I. M. Pei, the stories of Isaac Asimov, the entire industries that were forged by Andrew Carnegie.
And then when I think about immigration I think about the naturalization ceremonies that we’ve held at the White House for members of our military. Nothing could be more inspiring. Even though they were not yet citizens when they joined our military, these men and women signed up to serve.
We did one event at the White House and a young man named Granger Michael from Papua New Guinea, a Marine who had been deployed to Iraq three times, was there. And you know what he said about becoming an American citizen? He said, “I might as well. I love this country already.” That’s all he said. Marines aren’t big on speeches. (Laughter.)
Another was a woman named Perla Ramos who was born and raised in Mexico and came to the United States shortly after 9/11, and joined the Navy. And she said, “I take pride in our flag and the history we write day by day.”
That’s the promise of this country -- that anyone can write the next chapter in our story. It doesn’t matter where you come from -- (applause) -- it doesn’t matter where you come from; it doesn’t matter what you look like; it doesn’t matter what faith you worship. What matters is that you believe in the ideals on which we were founded; that you believe that all of us are created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. (Applause.) All of us deserve our freedoms and our pursuit of happiness. In embracing America, you can become American. That is what makes this country great. That enriches all of us.
And yet, at the same time, we’re here at the border today -- (applause) -- we’re here at the border because we also recognize that being a nation of laws goes hand in hand with being a nation of immigrants. This, too, is our heritage. This, too, is important. And the truth is, we’ve often wrestled with the politics of who is and who isn’t allowed to come into this country. This debate is not new.
At times, there has been fear and resentment directed towards newcomers, especially in hard economic times. And because these issues touch deeply on what we believe, touch deeply on our convictions -- about who we are as a people, about what it means to be an American -- these debates often elicit strong emotions.
That’s one reason it’s been so difficult to reform our broken immigration system. When an issue is this complex, when it raises such strong feelings, it’s easier for politicians to defer until the problem the next election. And there’s always a next election.
So we’ve seen a lot of blame and a lot of politics and a lot of ugly rhetoric around immigration. And we’ve seen good faith efforts from leaders of both parties -- by the way, I just noticed, those of you who have chairs, if you want to sit down, feel free. There’s no rule about having to stand when I’m --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- we love you! (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: But we’ve seen leaders of both parties who try to work on this issue, but then their efforts fell prey to the usual Washington games. And all the while, we’ve seen the mounting consequences of decades of inaction.
Today, there are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants here in the United States. Some crossed the border illegally. Others avoid immigration laws by overstaying their visas. Regardless of how they came, the overwhelming majority of these folks are just trying to earn a living and provide for their families. (Applause.)
But we have to acknowledge they’ve broken the rules. They’ve cut in front of the line. And what is also true is that the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are trying to immigrate legally.
Also, because undocumented immigrants live in the shadows, where they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses that skirt taxes, and pay workers less than the minimum wage, or cut corners with health and safety laws, this puts companies who follow the rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime or just a safe place to work, it puts those businesses at a disadvantage.
Think about it. Over the past decade, even before the recession hit, middle-class families were struggling to get by as the costs went up for everything, from health care, to college tuition, to groceries, to gas. Their incomes didn’t go up with those prices. We’re seeing it again right now with gas prices.
So one way to strengthen the middle class in America is to reform the immigration system so that there is no longer a massive underground economy that exploits a cheap source of labor while depressing wages for everybody else. I want incomes for middle-class families to rise again. (Applause.) I want prosperity in this country to be widely shared. (Applause.) I want everybody to be able to reach that American dream. And that’s why immigration reform is an economic imperative. It’s an economic imperative. (Applause.)
And reform will also help to make America more competitive in the global economy. Today, we provide students from around the world with visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities. (Applause.)
But then our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or a new industry here in the United States. Instead of training entrepreneurs to stay here, we train them to create jobs for our competition. That makes no sense. In a global marketplace, we need all the talent we can attract, all the talent we can get to stay here to start businesses -- not just to benefit those individuals, but because their contribution will benefit all Americans.
Look at Intel, look at Google, look at Yahoo, look at eBay. All those great American companies, all the jobs they’ve created, everything that has helped us take leadership in the high-tech industry, every one of those was founded by, guess who, an immigrant. (Applause.)
So we don’t want the next Intel or the next Google to be created in China or India. We want those companies and jobs to take root here. (Applause.) Bill Gates gets this. He knows a little something about the high-tech industry. He said, “The United States will find it far more difficult to maintain its competitive edge if it excludes those who are able and willing to help us compete.”
So immigration is not just the right thing to do. It’s smart for our economy. It’s smart for our economy. (Applause.) And it’s for this reason that businesses all across America are demanding that Washington finally meet its responsibilities to solve the immigration problem. Everybody recognizes the system is broken. The question is, will we finally summon the political will to do something about it? And that’s why we’re here at the border today.
And I want to say I am joined today by an outstanding Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, who’s been working tirelessly on this issue. (Applause.) Our commissioner who’s working diligently on border issues, Alan Bersin, is there, and we appreciate him -- Bersin. (Applause.)
So they’re doing outstanding work. And in recent years, among one of the greatest impediments to reform were questions about border security. And these were legitimate concerns. What was true was a lack of manpower and a lack of resources at the border, combined with the pull of jobs and ill-considered enforcement once folks were in the country.
All this contributed to a growing number of undocumented people living in the United States. And these concerns helped unravel a bipartisan coalition that we had forged back when I was in the United States Senate. So in the years since, “borders first, borders first,” that's become the common refrain, even among those who were previously supportive of comprehensive immigration reform.
But over the last two years, thanks to the outstanding work of Janet and Alan and everybody who’s down here working at the border, we’ve answered those concerns. Under their leadership, we have strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible. They wanted more agents at the border. Well, we now have more boots on the ground on the southwest border than at any time in our history. (Applause.)
The Border Patrol has 20,000 agents -- more than twice as many as there were in 2004. It’s a build-up that began under President Bush and that we’ve continued, and I had a chance to meet some of these outstanding agents, and actually saw some of them on horseback who looked pretty tough. (Laughter.) So we put the agents here.
Then they wanted a fence. Well, the fence is --
AUDIENCE: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: The fence is now basically complete.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Tear it down!
THE PRESIDENT: Then we’ve gone further. We tripled the number of intelligence analysts working at the border. I’ve deployed unmanned aerial vehicles to patrol the skies from Texas to California. We have forged a partnership with Mexico to fight the transnational criminal organizations that have affected both of our countries. (Applause.) And for the first time -- for the first time we’re screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments to seize guns and money going south even as we go after drugs that are coming north. (Applause.)
So, here’s the point. I want everybody to listen carefully to this. We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: They’re racist!
THE PRESIDENT: You know, they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. Or now they’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol. Or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. (Laughter.) Maybe they want alligators in the moat. (Laughter.) They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics.
But the truth is the measures we’ve put in place are getting results. Over the past two and a half years, we’ve seized 31 percent more drugs, 75 percent more currency, 64 percent more weapons than ever before. (Applause.) And even as we have stepped up patrols, apprehensions along the border have been cut by nearly 40 percent from two years ago. That means far fewer people are attempting to cross the border illegally.
And also, despite a lot of breathless reports that have tagged places like El Paso as dangerous, violent crime in southwest border counties has dropped by a third. El Paso and other cities and towns along this border are consistently among the safest in the nation. (Applause.) Of course, we shouldn’t accept any violence or crime. And we’ve always got more work to do. But this progress is important and it’s not getting reported on.
And we’re also going beyond the border. Beyond the border, we’re going after employers who knowingly exploit people and break the law. (Applause.) And we are deporting those who are here illegally. And that’s a tough issue. It’s a source of controversy.
But I want to emphasize we’re not doing it haphazardly. We’re focusing our limited resources and people on violent offenders and people convicted of crimes -- not just families, not just folks who are just looking to scrape together an income. And as a result, we’ve increased the removal of criminals by 70 percent. (Applause.)
That’s not to ignore the real human toll of a broken immigration system. Even as we recognize that enforcing the law is necessary, we don’t relish the pain that it causes in the lives of people who are just trying to get by and get caught up in the system.
And as long as the current laws are on the books, it’s not just hardened felons who are subject to removal, but sometimes families who are just trying to earn a living, or bright, eager students, or decent people with the best of intentions. (Applause.)
And sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's what I’m committed to doing. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, we can! Yes, we can!
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we can. We can do it. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE: Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Yes, we can!
THE PRESIDENT: The most significant step we can now take to secure the borders is to fix the system as a whole so that fewer people have the incentive to enter illegally in search of work in the first place. This would allow agents to focus on the worst threats on both of our -- both sides of our borders, from drug traffickers to those who would come here to commit acts of violence or terror. That’s where our focus should be.
So, El Paso, the question is whether those in Congress who previously walked away in the name of enforcement are now ready to come back to the table and finish the work that we’ve started. (Applause.) We’ve got to put the politics aside. And if we do, I’m confident we can find common ground.
Washington is lagging behind the country on this. There is already a growing coalition of leaders across America who don’t always see eye-to-eye, but are coming together on this issue. They see the harmful consequences of a broken immigration system for their businesses and for their communities, and they understand why we need to act.
There are Democrats and Republicans, people like former Republican Senator Mel Martinez; former Bush administration Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff; leaders like Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York; evangelical ministers like Leith Anderson and Bill Hybels; police chiefs from across the nation; educators; advocates; labor unions; chambers of commerce; small business owners; Fortune 500 CEOs.
I mean, one CEO had this to say about reform: “American ingenuity is a product of the openness and diversity of this society. Immigrants have made America great as the world leader in business, in science, higher education and innovation.” You know who that leader was? Rupert Murdoch, who owns FOX News, and is an immigrant himself. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Rupert Murdoch’s views, but let’s just say he doesn’t have an Obama sticker on his car. (Laughter.) But he agrees with me on this. (Applause.)
So there is a consensus around fixing what’s broken. And now we need Congress to catch up. Now we need to come together around reform that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants; reform that demands that everybody take responsibility. So what would comprehensive reform look like?
First, we know that government has a threshold responsibility to secure our borders and enforce the law. And that’s what Janet and all her folks are doing. That’s what they’re doing. (Applause.)
Second, businesses have to be held accountable if they exploit undocumented workers. (Applause.)
Third, those who are here illegally, they have a responsibility as well. So they broke the law, and that means they’ve got to pay their taxes, they’ve got to pay a fine, they’ve got to learn English. And they’ve got to undergo background checks and a lengthy process before they get in line for legalization. That’s not too much to ask. (Applause.)
And fourth, stopping illegal immigration also depends on reforming our outdated system of legal immigration. (Applause.) We should make it easier for the best and the brightest to not only stay here, but also to start businesses and create jobs here. In recent years, a full 25 percent of high-tech startups in the U.S. were founded by immigrants. That led to 200,000 jobs here in America. I’m glad those jobs are here. I want to see more of them created in this country. We need to provide them the chance. (Applause.)
We need to provide our farms a legal way to hire workers that they rely on, and a path for those workers to earn legal status. (Applause.) And our laws should respect families following the rules -- reuniting them more quickly instead of splitting them apart. (Applause.)
Today, the immigration system not only tolerates those who break the rules, but it punishes folks who follow the rules. While applications -- while applicants wait for approval, for example, they’re often forbidden from visiting the United States. Even husbands and wives may have to spend years apart. Parents can’t see their children. I don’t believe the United States of America should be in the business of separating families. That’s not right. That’s not who we are. We can do better than that. (Applause.)
And we should stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents. (Applause.) We should stop denying them the chance to earn an education or serve in the military. And that’s why we need to pass the DREAM Act. (Applause.) Now, we passed the DREAM Act through the House last year when Democrats were in control. But even though it received a majority of votes in the Senate, it was blocked when several Republicans who had previously supported the DREAM Act voted no.
That was a tremendous disappointment to get so close and then see politics get in the way. And as I gave that commencement at Miami Dade, it broke my heart knowing that a number of those promising, bright students -- young people who worked so hard and who speak about what’s best in America -- are at risk of facing the agony of deportation. These are kids who grew up in this country. They love this country. They know no other place to call home. The idea that we’d punish them is cruel. It makes no sense. We’re a better nation than that. (Applause.)
So we’re going to keep fighting for the DREAM Act. We’re going to keep up the fight for reform. (Applause.) And that’s where you come in. I’m going to do my part to lead a constructive and civil debate on these issues. And we’ve already had a series of meetings about this at the White House in recent weeks. We’ve got leaders here and around the country helping to move the debate forward.
But this change ultimately has to be driven by you, the American people. You’ve got to help push for comprehensive reform, and you’ve got to identify what steps we can take right now -- like the DREAM Act, like visa reform -- areas where we can find common ground among Democrats and Republicans and begin to fix what’s broken.
So I’m asking you to add your voices to this debate. You can sign up to help at whitehouse.gov. We need Washington to know that there is a movement for reform that’s gathering strength from coast to coast. That’s how we’ll get this done. That’s how we can ensure that in the years ahead we are welcoming the talents of all who can contribute to this country and that we’re living up to the basic American idea that you can make it here if you try. (Applause.)
And a few years later, he found himself more than 100 miles above the surface of the Earth, staring out of the window of the shuttle Discovery, and he was remembering the boy in the California fields with that crazy dream that in America everything is possible. (Applause.)
The U.S. Department of Interior filed an Opposition to Compel in response to CNMI Attorney Deanne Siemer's witch hunt against the department and Ombudsman Pamela Brown. Siemer filed a lawsuit against the DOI in the District Court of the District of Columbia under the name of Teresa Kim, attorney for the Lt. Governor Inos, to get information that does not exist.
In the response, the U.S. Attorneys smacked down the Siemer vendetta. Some key phrases from the motion:
Defendant, the Department of the Interior (“DOI”), opposes Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to Defendant. Not only is discovery improper in a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action such as this case, but the discovery at issue has no bearing on the narrow issues presented in Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment.
The interrogatories seek certain information about the destruction of certain in-take forms pertaining to the registration of aliens in Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Those forms were destroyed five months before the FOIA request was made, and after the information on the forms was placed on spreadsheets which the agency maintained and which have been released in this FOIA action.
Plaintiff’s interrogatories seek to expand this case beyond the narrow issues presented under FOIA. “It is well settled that a FOIA request pertains only to documents in the possession of the agency at the time of the FOIA request” and the fact that “an agency once possessed responsive documents but does not at the time of the FOIA request does not preclude summary judgment in the agency’s favor.” Landmark Legal Foundation v. EPA, 272 F. Supp 2d 59, 66 (D.D.C., 2003).
It also bears mentioning that the information sought by Plaintiff in this case has been retained by the agency on the spreadsheets that have been released. Thus, while not in the form that Plaintiff prefers, this is not a case where the information was destroyed. Rather, the information, although not retained in one form (i.e., the in-take forms) was retained in another form, namely, the contemporaneously prepared spreadsheets that have been released.
This Court’s General Order and Guidelines For Civil Cases specifically states that “[l]eave of the court is required before the filing of a discovery dispute-related motion” (DE, # 5 at ¶ 8). Plaintiff failed to request approval from the Court before filing her motion to compel and, therefore, the motion should be denied for this additional reason.
The cash-strapped CNMI Government (that always has its hand out to federal taxpayers) has also sued the Social Security Administration in an equally bizarre lawsuit. The Siemer-Kim team filed a FOIA request for a memorandum from the Social Security Administration. Siemer sued because she was not satisfied with the document that the SSA released because it had redactions.
That lawsuit revealed the fact that the CNMI Government was set to destroy all immigration records. This is ironic since there is now a protest because the Ombudsman Office destroyed mere intake forms. Furthermore, it was the refusal of the CNMI government to release such documents that caused the Ombudsman Office to conduct their own count in the first place.
A November 2010 declaration made by Peter C Monaghan, Director of the Office of Enumeration and Medicare Policy (OEMP) in the Office of Income Security Programs in the Social Security Administration of Baltimore, Maryland stated: "CNMI immigration officers stopped verifying CNMI evidence of immigration status, which they had approved prior to the passage of the law. CNMI immigration officers informed Saipan field office management that CNMI immigration records were going to be purged."
The SSA redacted the portions of a letter that revealed how the agency verifies and detects fraudulent documents presented for a Social Security card to protect against individuals circumventing the SSA's rules to obtain a card using fraudulent documentation. Why would Siemer or the CNMI Government even need this information? Why does this lawsuit continue and how much do each of these lawsuits cost taxpayers?
Apparently, the CNMI is competing for the world record of stupid Freedom of Information Act requests. Another CNMI-related FOIA request is posted on the web as "The Broadest FOIA Request Ever: A Records Horror Story." The ridiculous FOIA was written in the late 1990s by a government official and it requests anything and everything related to the federal takeover including any "correspondence written by Boboy Doromal and Wendy Doromal." The site instructs the readers where to get an original copy of FOIA and suggest framing a copy since it is so asinine.
Siemer apparently also filed a FOIA request in 2009 for "any documents provided to DHS during 2007, 2008, and 2009, by Wendy Doromal that constitute or contain observations, data and other materials..."
It's amazing that Siemer can file lawsuits because she is not satisfied with information provided from departments in response to her, but she refuses to release information regarding how much she was paid by the CNMI Government for her "volunteer" (yeah, right) services.
In January 2011, former Representative Tina Sablan filed an Open Government Act request for information on the government's legal service contracts, billings, invoices, and related documents.
She received some highly redacted documents as a result of her request. The information released from the Governor's Office invites a lawsuit, mainly because it provides a lot of non-information, which is in violation of the Open Government Act.
Listings of payments made with the date, but with no dollar figures, cry for disclosure. It appears that Deanne Siemer, the infamous "volunteer" was, as many of us suspected, not a volunteer at all. Between May 2008 and December 2009 Siemer received 56 payments from the Governor's Office. The documents released to Tina Sablan did not reveal what services she provided, but we can probably fill in the blanks. Seimer and her husband, Howard Willens, who received even more payments from the Governor's Office than his wife were leading the battle against federalization.
The following is a breakdown of payments the Governor's Office made as provided by Tina Sablan, which include a listing of invoices paid to Siemer:
How is it that the queen of witch hunts refuses to disclose her personal information? True to form, Siemer had one of her former puppets, Cinta Kaipat, send a letter to the editor defending her "volunteer" status in a rather pathetic rant. Still the Governor's Office and AG Buckingham refused to release the invoices, which actually exist and are public record since they were paid for with public funds. So hypocritical and disingenuous! I hope that there will be follow-up on this real violation of OGA law.
Maybe the CNMI Government is not having Siemer file the FOIA requests and lawsuits in the government's name, but under Attorney Kim's name because the CNMI doesn't want to be affiliated with FOIA request lawsuits that are clearly inappropriate, worded as vendettas, or don't qualify for the request being asked. But then again, when has the CNMI Government ever considered dignity, ethics and/or doing the right thing? It must be a matter of convenience for Siemer. Still, it must be revealed whether Siemer and Kim or the CNMI government are paying the costs associated with these frivolous lawsuits.
CNMI Attorney Jane Mack reflected on the killing of Osama bin Laden in a letter to the editor published in the Marianas Variety on May 6, 2011. In her letter, she called the killing of the terrorist an assassination, plain and simple. She also questioned the legally of entering Pakistan to carry out the mission, and the moral implications of the decision to bury bin Laden at sea. All valid questions.
The American public, led by the media, will discuss the merits of bin Laden's killing and the related-decision around the mission for weeks, maybe even months. Some say that the topic could shape the upcoming presidential elections. Yet few people will ever discuss the moral implications of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The U.S. media seldom reports on the number of civilians that have died in the years that we occupied Iran and Afghanistan, including innocent women and children.
The United Nations reported that in 2010 alone there were 2,777 civilian deaths in Afghanistan and the rate is increasing this year. In the last four years 8,000 civilians have died in Afghanistan. Estimates that in Iraq there were over 100,000 war-related civilian deaths. As for American casualties, in Afghanistan there have been 5,999 American deaths and 43,184 wounded as of April 26, 2011.
In Iraq, 4,421 Americans lost their lives and an estimated 31,827 were wounded. Over 100,000 civilians lost their lives in Iraq as a result of the war. The United Nations reported over 100,000 Iraqi refugees were resettled to other countries since the war began. (One young man who fled Iraq with his family to Jordan made it to Orlando where is my student.) In 2008 the Iraqi Government reported that there were over 3.5 million orphans in Iraq, with the United Nations estimating over 1 million.
We discuss the economic and political costs of war, but we seem to avoid discussions centered on the social costs of war. Who focuses on the negative social impact that war has on civilians, families and the soldiers who have to deal with the fact that they killed a person when they try to return to their former lives? War results in enormous social devastation for our entire country and the world.
If you want to see some of the casualties of war, visit the homeless camps around Orlando and talk to the war veterans who live in them. I have and they are broken, lost and forgotten. There are hundreds of thousand of homeless veterans; there are veterans needing medical attention, and mental heath counseling. Will we allow them to become invisible and abandoned, as we did to the Vietnam War veterans?
It is not the death of one person that needs to highlight the news and discussions from living rooms to conference rooms, to the Halls of the U.S. Congress. It is the fact that the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the casualties of millions. It is the fact that we need to find peaceful ways to solve our problems. Isn't it time that the discussion centered on ending fighting and war?
Wednesday's message to President Obama from the Hispanic Caucus is that the President must take Administrative action to advance immigration reform. This is the message from the petition that Was sent to President Obama last year.
CHC Members say there are several areas where Obama has the authority to take action in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform. These include expediting VISAs, focusing deportation efforts on criminal apprehension and changing rules that keep illegal immigrants out of the country for up to 10 years if they ever leave the U.S.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who chairs CHC’s Immigration Task Force, said he has the same message for Obama that he has been taking to the thousands of people who show up to the rallies he has been hosting nationwide on the need for reforming the immigration system.
“You have the authority,” Gutierrez said. “We want you to take the administrative action that you can take.”
Expect to see immigration reform take a front stage this month. President Obama will be traveling to Texas next week to deliver a speech on immigration reform in El Paso, Texas.
President Obama has reportedly been holding meetings with members of Congress over the last few weeks, included the one attended by Congressman Sablan and other Hispanic Caucus members.
At the Cinco de Mayo celebration held last evening at the White House, the President said:
"I strongly believe that we've got to fix this broken system so that it meets the needs of our 21st century economy and our security needs,"
It was interesting to read Congressman Sablan's remark in the Marianas Variety today, which responded to a previous story stating that DEKADA members and their U.S. citizen children met with the Congressman. He said:
The report, “Sagana: US Citizen Children Met With Sablan,” in your May 4, 2011 issue implies that Mr. Boni Sagana met with me or had a hand in arranging meetings with me.
I would like to clarify that after review of my office records I can find no verification of this claim.
GREGORIO KILILI
CAMACHO SABLAN
Member of U.S. Congress
The article that Congressman Sablan was referring to was written by author Junhan Todeno and was published in the Marianas Variety on May 4, 2011. It stated in part:
Boni Sagana, Dekada Movement president, said he helped organize children of guest workers who are U.S. citizens to ask Congressman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan to grant their parents CNMI-only resident status.
“I believe that was the result of their dialogue with Congressman Kilili,” he said, referring to the bill introduced by Sablan in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Sablan’s H.R. 1466 will grant parents of U.S. citizen children CNMI-only resident status.
The group of U.S. citizen children 12 years old and above met with Sablan, Sagana said.
“They were given an assurance that the congressman would look into the situation of their parents,” Sagana said, adding that the group was working independently and not affiliated with any guest workers group.
“We really appreciate the efforts of Congressman Sablan and we thank him for introducing that bill,” he said.
What's with the conflicting reports? Certainly Congressman Sablan would not deny such a meeting if it actually took place.
Comments attributed to Boni Sagana in the Saipan Tribune today that echo those of Rabby Syed who shares my beliefs that all legal, long-term nonresident workers, not just selected groups, should be given improved status, and that improved status has to be green cards.
But isn't the real question why would any nonresident worker want to take any kind of credit for a bill that would not provide green cards or a pathway to citizenship, but offers only an inferior second-class citizen, apartheid-type status that would keep the nonresident workers disenfranchised and voiceless? Why support legislation that leaves out equally deserving long-term, legal workers because of their marital or reproductive status? When we have the President of the United States advocating for a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens, why would any legal alien want to accept a restrictive and oppressive status?
I interpret the CNRA as a law enacted to align the CNMI with U.S. immigration laws. I believe it is unwise to provide special classification for certain territories and states and view this as a step backwards that conflicts with the intent of the law. There is no Florida-only, California-only or Arizona-only status and hopefully there will never be a CNMI-only status. It is not necessary. What is necessary is to grant an existing United States status to the workers -green cards with a pathway to citizenship or outright U.S. citizenship.
Boni Sagana was quoted by the Marianas Variety as stating that the bill "is a good beginning for the alien workers." I have heard that line before. When we were fighting to have status included in the CNRA, members of Congress and their staffers told me that removing the "grandfathering" provision that would have provides status (inferior also, but status) was "the only way" to get the bill to pass. They assured me that a "better" status with a pathway to citizenship would follow. Well, I am waiting; the nonresident workers are waiting. It appears this is the line that is used in Congress as an excuse to pass inferior legislation.
Whenever I hear someone defend the bill by saying that "it is a start" or "it is good enough" I want to ask them, "Is this a status that you would accept for yourself? Would you be fine with being a resident of a locality for 20 or more years and having no political or social rights?"
As stated in a previous post, our nation needs to advance in immigration policy, not step backwards.
The bill only recognizes four specific groups as qualifying for upgraded status:
(I) was born in the Northern Mariana Islands between January 1, 1974, and January 9, 1978;
(II) was, on May 8, 2008, a permanent resident as that term is defined in section 4303 of Title 3 of the Northern Mariana Islands Commonwealth Code in effect on May 8, 2008;
(III) is the spouse or child, as defined in section 101(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)), of an alien described in subclauses (I) or (II); or
(IV) was, on May 8, 2008, an immediate relative, as that term is defined in section 4303 of Title 3 of the Northern Mariana Islands Commonwealth Code in effect on May 8, 2008, of a United States citizen, not withstanding the age of the United States citizen, and continues to be such an immediate relative on the date of the application described under subparagraph (A).
Any immigration bill related to the long-term nonresident workers in the CNMI should address ALL of the long-term foreigner workers, not just selected groups. I agree with the upgrading of status for the CNMI permanent residents and those born in the CNMI January 1, 1974, and January 9, 1978. However, they should receive green cards or U.S. citizenship, not CNMI-only status. Why a sub-status?
I object to the restrictions and selectiveness in the category of long-term foreign workers. Omitting certain categories of equally qualifying workers because of their marital status or reproductive status is discriminatory and perhaps unconstitutional. How can the United States Congress say that people who are married or people who have U.S. citizen children are in some way more qualified to work and live permanently in the CNMI than foreigners who have lived and worked there the same length of time or longer and are single, or have foreign children or no children?
The proposed legislation allows those selected-only nonresidents who resided in the CNMI as of November 28, 2009 to qualify for the improved status. If the legislation passes it would mean that even an alien who was in the CNMI even for a limited time would receive improved status and a person who has legally lived and worked in the CNMI for 30 years, but has no U.S. citizen spouse or children will be overlooked. That is plain wrong.
Passing such a bill could set a dangerous precedent and could delay meaningful legislation to give the long-term, legal workers a democratic status, a uniform status based on American ideals, a status that offers full political and social rights.
As for the unstable situation of the U.S. citizen children and their parents, it should have been addressed in the CNRA along with the status of all legal nonresidents. I addressed this issue in 2007 at a meeting at Kilili Beach where hundreds of U.S. citizen children and their parents showed up to express their plea for green cards. A video of some of the children and parents is here.
In related news, I received an email from a friend saying he attended a function hosted by Congressman Sablan where the Congressman reported that President Obama was made aware of the CNMI situation during a Hispanic Caucus meeting.
The Saipan Tribune also reported that the President is aware of the plight of the foreign contract workers.
President Obama should be very aware of the situation concerning the status of the CNMI's foreign contract workers since Congressman Sablan has met with him several times and he received petitions signed by over 7,000 people imploring him to take action to support green cards and a pathway to citizenship for the legal nonresidents. The President also received numerous reports, testimonies and letters from advocates and from the nonresident workers and their children.
I am glad that members of Congress now understand that there are gaps in the CNRA that must be corrected. I think one of the best analysis of the law and its problems is the law journal written by Robert Misulich. He noted the holes in the CNRA and offered a sensible solution:
Although well intentioned, the current federalization program lacks necessary provisions to normalize the status of long-term guest workers and their families. Thousands of guest workers are the parents of U.S. citizen children who have been raised in the CNMI and know no other place. As it is, the law causes serious hardship and potentially splits families apart and harms children. It also deprives the CNMI of the workforce it needs to rebuild its economy.
As Congress enacted specific legislation to normalize the status of guest workers in the USVI, recognizing their long-term economic contributions and de-facto permanent residence, Congress should do the same for the 15,816 guest workers who have lived in the CNMI for five or more years.222 Doing so would prevent the extreme and irrational injustice of subjecting long-term legal residents and parents of one-quarter of CNMI children to deportation. Funding and provision of services concerns raised by certain local politicians are unsubstantiated and are not indicative of public opinion in the CNMI.223 To alleviate any such concerns, Congress should create a task force to determine the impact of normalization on the fiscal status of the CNMI and provide adequate compensation to meet these needs.
Federalization of immigration law in the CNMI is incomplete without a provision to normalize the status of long-term guest workers. Subjecting thousands of legal workers to deportation, through no fault of their own, is flatly unjust. Congressional action enacted from a distance of 7,800 miles must be well informed and must take into account the unique circumstances of the CNMI. With the specter of federalization of immigration law in
American Samoa, the last remaining U.S. insular area with its own immigration system, federalization in the CNMI should serve as a model rather than an example of haphazard injustice.
Exactly what does Deanne Siemer (through Attorney Teresa Kim) think will be accomplished by pursuing a Freedom of Information Act request against the Federal Ombudsman's Office? It looks like the flying monkeys have been released once again.
Is this just the latest chapter in never-ending line of attempts of the Fitial Administration "to go after" the Ombudsman Office? The Fitial Administration seems to fear the office because it that protects the foreign workers' rights including from mean-spirited actions of the CNMI DOL, Siemer, and it also has exposed the CNMI's propaganda and spin.
Why does the CNMI government need intake papers that were used to create a federal report? With Siemer's history, most likely for some wicked Fitial Administration-backed plot to further stick it to the aliens.
Documents filed in the District Court seem to suggest just that. Kim states, "Because the Commonwealth is very small, both in land mass and number of residents, this change in status for a such a very large number of aliens relative to the U.S. citizen population would bring economic, political, and social changes that the Commonwealth government opposed." Really? No changes have been brought over that last three decades, but because these nonresident workers could conceivably get green cards and have some social and political rights, let go after the report and the person who helped to collect data for it? WICKED! It's all about maintaining that power and control over the disenfranchised underclass.
The DOI status report was compiled for members of Congress and satisfied the requirements under the CNRA. No members of Congress are requesting information or complaining about the report.
Today there is another story in the Marianas Variety debating the act of the Ombudman's Office's shredding the unneeded intake papers that were used to compose the tables for the report.
The Fitial Administration filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia. How much is it costing the cash-strapped CNMI Government to pursue nonexistent papers? The Court will decide whether nonexistent papers can be provided under the FOIA and if the DOI can be sanctioned for destroying documents before a request for them was made.
You can help the legal, long-term nonresident workers of the CNMI. Ask members of Congress to:
• Grant an unobstructed pathway to U.S. citizenship through permanent residency to all of the CNMI's nonresident workers who had been working lawfully and legally in the CNMI for at least five years;
• Grant a pathway to citizenship for the immediate relatives of the guest workers who acquire U.S citizenship;
• Provide reparations for the thousands of cheated foreign workers who have been victims of routine wage theft and other labor and human rights abuses;
• Demand that the appropriate U.S. law enforcement officials prosecute all employers who engage in the routine practice of wage theft and other labor and human rights abuses;
• Properly fund and staff the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, State, and Labor in the CNMI to ensure the safety and human rights of guest workers and the community.
Please be a voice for the voiceless guest workers!
Posts
