Guthertz: DEIS fails to address social problems
Thursday, 04 February 2010 02:41
MVG Reporter
(LEGISLATURE)--Senator Judith P. Guthertz said the draft environmental impact statement contains no mechanism to deal with the inevitable social problems that will arise with the arrival of 10,000 or more Marines and their dependents.
“As a former Director of Public Safety and acting chief of police, I am well aware of the situation we will be facing. Like all young men of their age, Marines will be trying to attract young civilian women,” Guthertz stated in a comment paper directed to Major General David Bice, USMC, executive director of the Joint Guam Program Office.
“Combine that with drinking around a pool table with cue sticks and hard billiard balls readily available, and the situation can become very volatile,” she added.
Guthertz is looking to the CNMI for a potential solution. A provision of the CNMI’s Covenant with Washington provides for a council to address the military-civilian relationship.
“The [CNMI‟s] Civil-Military Advisory Council has been a regular mechanism over several of the years for consultation and coordination between the military and the CNMI Government, meeting with an agenda, action items assigned, and joint deadlines established,” Guthertz said.
Guthertz says the right organization on Guam to handle this would be the Guam First Commission, which was created by law in 2008 over Gov. Felix Camacho’s veto.
The governor has since refused to implement the law. Earlier, the governor created a Civilian-Military Task Force Council to deal with buildup problems, but that body’s last meeting was in October 2008.
Potential problems that such an organization would deal with are already being discussed on island, such as the 18-year-old drinking age in the Guam civilian community as opposed to the 21-year-old age on base.
“Issues are certain to arise regarding DUIs, as the young servicemen attempt to get back to their base safely after having fun downtown. The DEIS does not address this disparity between drinking ages,” Guthertz said.
The sex industry is also an issue, with reports that these businesses are already planning to set up shop on Route 3, just across from the main Marine cantonment.
“The Marine Corps, of course, is opposed to this and does not want local zoning to permit it just outside the family-oriented base. This would be an issue for discussion and coordination between the military and civilian leadership in Guam,” Guthertz said.
Showing posts with label CNMI Covenant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CNMI Covenant. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Friday, December 04, 2009
House rejects proposed Marianas Political Commission
House rejects proposed Marianas Political Commission
Friday, 04 December 2009 00:00 By Gemma Q. Casas - Reporter
HOUSE lawmakers rejected yesterday a bill that proposes to re-examine the islands’ political union with the U.S.
Introduced by Rep. Stanley T. Torres, R-Saipan, House Bill 16-271, or the Second Marianas Political and Economic Status Commission Act of 2009, was defeated by just one vote.
Seven voted against it — Speaker Arnold I. Palacios, R-Saipan; Diego T. Benavente, R-Saipan; Tina Sablan, Ind.-Saipan; Rosemond B. Santos, R-Saipan; Joseph C. Reyes, R-Saipan; Francisco S. Dela Cruz, R-Saipan; and David M. Apatang, R-Saipan.
Voting in favor were Torres, R-Saipan; Ramon A. Tebuteb, R-Saipan; Ray N. Yumul, R-Saipan; House Floor Leader Joseph N. Camacho, R-Saipan; Edwin P. Aldan, Covenant-Tinian; and House Minority Leader Oscar M. Babauta, Covenant-Saipan.
Torres vowed to resurrect his bill when the 17th Legislature convenes next month.
Lawmakers who did not support the bill said the CNMI’s relationship with the U.S. maybe “rocky” sometimes, but the islands have so many much to thank America for — U.S. citizenship, free speech, public education, grants, welfare benefits, jobs, among other things.
Benavente, who chairs the House Committee on U.S. and Foreign Relations, said the CNMI should try to improve its relations with the federal government rather than changing its political status.
What the bill proposes, he added, “is not realistic,” and will involve the expenditure of taxpayer money.
Sablan said the proposal should be discussed in public meetings at the very least before legislators act on it.
She noted that the initial cost involved in forming the commission will be $200,000.
According to Torres, the commission will determine if the “terms of the Covenant are in the [local people’s] best interest or whether some other political status will better enable them to fulfill their aspirations of full and meaningful self-government.”
Friday, 04 December 2009 00:00 By Gemma Q. Casas - Reporter
HOUSE lawmakers rejected yesterday a bill that proposes to re-examine the islands’ political union with the U.S.
Introduced by Rep. Stanley T. Torres, R-Saipan, House Bill 16-271, or the Second Marianas Political and Economic Status Commission Act of 2009, was defeated by just one vote.
Seven voted against it — Speaker Arnold I. Palacios, R-Saipan; Diego T. Benavente, R-Saipan; Tina Sablan, Ind.-Saipan; Rosemond B. Santos, R-Saipan; Joseph C. Reyes, R-Saipan; Francisco S. Dela Cruz, R-Saipan; and David M. Apatang, R-Saipan.
Voting in favor were Torres, R-Saipan; Ramon A. Tebuteb, R-Saipan; Ray N. Yumul, R-Saipan; House Floor Leader Joseph N. Camacho, R-Saipan; Edwin P. Aldan, Covenant-Tinian; and House Minority Leader Oscar M. Babauta, Covenant-Saipan.
Torres vowed to resurrect his bill when the 17th Legislature convenes next month.
Lawmakers who did not support the bill said the CNMI’s relationship with the U.S. maybe “rocky” sometimes, but the islands have so many much to thank America for — U.S. citizenship, free speech, public education, grants, welfare benefits, jobs, among other things.
Benavente, who chairs the House Committee on U.S. and Foreign Relations, said the CNMI should try to improve its relations with the federal government rather than changing its political status.
What the bill proposes, he added, “is not realistic,” and will involve the expenditure of taxpayer money.
Sablan said the proposal should be discussed in public meetings at the very least before legislators act on it.
She noted that the initial cost involved in forming the commission will be $200,000.
According to Torres, the commission will determine if the “terms of the Covenant are in the [local people’s] best interest or whether some other political status will better enable them to fulfill their aspirations of full and meaningful self-government.”
Thursday, November 26, 2009
'Federalization law is legal'
'Federalization law is legal'
Friday, November 27, 2009
NMI arguments 'unpersuasive, plain wrong'
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Paul L. Friedman has upheld the constitutionality of the law that applies federal immigration laws to the CNMI.
In explaining his order dismissing counts 1 and 2 of the CNMI government's amended lawsuit against federalization, Friedman described the Commonwealth's arguments “unpersuasive, unavailing, and just plain wrong.”
Friedman said that Congress was authorized to enact the Consolidated Natural Resources Act by the plain and unambiguous terms of Section 503 of the Covenant. CNRA, the federalization law, is also known as Public Law 110-229.
The judge also ruled that the challenged provisions of the CNRA comply with the mutual consent provision of Section 105 and the “self-government” guarantee of Section 103 of the Covenant.
“No doubt the CNMI would prefer that federal legislation never affect any matters of local concern, no matter how inextricably intertwined they may be with federal affairs. But it cannot rely on the Covenant to ensure that result,” said Friedman in a 39-page opinion that explained his Tuesday order dismissing two of the CNMI government's three-count lawsuit.
The CNMI, through the Jenner and Block law firm, had asked the court to prevent the federal government from acting in violation of the Covenant and urged the court to issue a permanent ban against the implementation of the federalization law in the Commonwealth.
In Count 1, the CNMI claimed that federalization is in violation of the Covenant in that it infringes on the right of the CNMI to self-government and abrogates that right without the CNMI's consent.
The CNMI argued, among other things, that the federalization of immigration and foreign worker-related labor matters in the CNMI violates sections of the Covenant which call for local control over local matters and require mutual consent for any changes to the Covenant.
The CNMI insists that Congress acted in excess of its authority in passing some provisions of the CNRA, and that those provisions must be stopped.
Friedman disagreed. He concluded that under the express and unambiguous language of Section 503 of the Covenant, Congress was free after Nov. 3, 1986, to apply immigration and naturalization laws of the U.S. to the CNMI.
“As a result, the CNRA is a legitimate exercise of federal congressional authority so long as its challenged provisions qualify as being among 'the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States.'”
Friedman said so long as the CNRA qualifies as an “immigration and naturalization law,” it does not infringe upon the “internal affairs” of the CNMI within the meaning of Section 103.
He said the CNMI's argument that the CNRA cannot be viewed as an “immigration law” is unpersuasive.
The judge said the CNMI is just plain wrong when it asserts that nothing in federal immigration and naturalization law permits an “employer-by-employer, worker-by-worker local labor permitting scheme.”
“The fact that the application of federal immigration laws to the CNMI through the CNRA may have a dramatic impact upon the CNMI's labor force does not convert an immigration law into a labor law,” he said.
Friedman said even if the court were to agree with the CNMI that the CNRA is not an immigration and naturalization law that Congress is specifically authorized by the Covenant to enact, the court will still find the CNRA valid under the Covenant.
The CNMI had argued that the provisions of the CNRA dealing with foreign workers already in the CNMI “have nothing whatever to do with border security” but are internal labor matters.
Friedman rejected this argument, saying this appears to be based on the assumption that “border security” is achieved only at the border and nowhere else.
“That assumption makes little sense here. Thousands of individuals who would have been ineligible to enter the CNMI under federal immigration law already reside in the CNMI,” he said.
Obviously, Friedman said, the U.S. could not simply ignore these individuals and at the same time regard the CNMI's borders as “secure,” because one of the principal ways the U.S. secures its borders is by requiring compliance with its immigration laws.
He said the CNMI wishes to characterize the regulation of foreign workers already admitted to the CNMI as a local matter because the CNMI's economy is dependent on the labor of foreign workers.
“In addition to being circular, that argument fails to recognize that the presence of thousands of foreign workers in the CNMI, few of whom would qualify to enter the CNMI under federal immigration laws, raises legitimate foreign policy and security concerns-concerns solely within the province of the federal government,” Friedman said.
Friday, November 27, 2009
NMI arguments 'unpersuasive, plain wrong'
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Paul L. Friedman has upheld the constitutionality of the law that applies federal immigration laws to the CNMI.
In explaining his order dismissing counts 1 and 2 of the CNMI government's amended lawsuit against federalization, Friedman described the Commonwealth's arguments “unpersuasive, unavailing, and just plain wrong.”
Friedman said that Congress was authorized to enact the Consolidated Natural Resources Act by the plain and unambiguous terms of Section 503 of the Covenant. CNRA, the federalization law, is also known as Public Law 110-229.
The judge also ruled that the challenged provisions of the CNRA comply with the mutual consent provision of Section 105 and the “self-government” guarantee of Section 103 of the Covenant.
“No doubt the CNMI would prefer that federal legislation never affect any matters of local concern, no matter how inextricably intertwined they may be with federal affairs. But it cannot rely on the Covenant to ensure that result,” said Friedman in a 39-page opinion that explained his Tuesday order dismissing two of the CNMI government's three-count lawsuit.
The CNMI, through the Jenner and Block law firm, had asked the court to prevent the federal government from acting in violation of the Covenant and urged the court to issue a permanent ban against the implementation of the federalization law in the Commonwealth.
In Count 1, the CNMI claimed that federalization is in violation of the Covenant in that it infringes on the right of the CNMI to self-government and abrogates that right without the CNMI's consent.
The CNMI argued, among other things, that the federalization of immigration and foreign worker-related labor matters in the CNMI violates sections of the Covenant which call for local control over local matters and require mutual consent for any changes to the Covenant.
The CNMI insists that Congress acted in excess of its authority in passing some provisions of the CNRA, and that those provisions must be stopped.
Friedman disagreed. He concluded that under the express and unambiguous language of Section 503 of the Covenant, Congress was free after Nov. 3, 1986, to apply immigration and naturalization laws of the U.S. to the CNMI.
“As a result, the CNRA is a legitimate exercise of federal congressional authority so long as its challenged provisions qualify as being among 'the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States.'”
Friedman said so long as the CNRA qualifies as an “immigration and naturalization law,” it does not infringe upon the “internal affairs” of the CNMI within the meaning of Section 103.
He said the CNMI's argument that the CNRA cannot be viewed as an “immigration law” is unpersuasive.
The judge said the CNMI is just plain wrong when it asserts that nothing in federal immigration and naturalization law permits an “employer-by-employer, worker-by-worker local labor permitting scheme.”
“The fact that the application of federal immigration laws to the CNMI through the CNRA may have a dramatic impact upon the CNMI's labor force does not convert an immigration law into a labor law,” he said.
Friedman said even if the court were to agree with the CNMI that the CNRA is not an immigration and naturalization law that Congress is specifically authorized by the Covenant to enact, the court will still find the CNRA valid under the Covenant.
The CNMI had argued that the provisions of the CNRA dealing with foreign workers already in the CNMI “have nothing whatever to do with border security” but are internal labor matters.
Friedman rejected this argument, saying this appears to be based on the assumption that “border security” is achieved only at the border and nowhere else.
“That assumption makes little sense here. Thousands of individuals who would have been ineligible to enter the CNMI under federal immigration law already reside in the CNMI,” he said.
Obviously, Friedman said, the U.S. could not simply ignore these individuals and at the same time regard the CNMI's borders as “secure,” because one of the principal ways the U.S. secures its borders is by requiring compliance with its immigration laws.
He said the CNMI wishes to characterize the regulation of foreign workers already admitted to the CNMI as a local matter because the CNMI's economy is dependent on the labor of foreign workers.
“In addition to being circular, that argument fails to recognize that the presence of thousands of foreign workers in the CNMI, few of whom would qualify to enter the CNMI under federal immigration laws, raises legitimate foreign policy and security concerns-concerns solely within the province of the federal government,” Friedman said.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Two counts of federalization suit dismissed
Two counts of federalization suit dismissed
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
The judge handling the lawsuit filed by the CNMI government to block the federal takeover of the local immigration system dismissed yesterday two of the three-count lawsuit, saying the CNMI failed to prove its case.
“After careful consideration of the parties' papers, their exhibits, the relevant case law, the statute and the Covenant, the court concludes that the [CNMI] has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to Counts I and II of its amended complaint, and that those claims therefore should be dismissed,” said U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Paul L. Friedman in a two-page order.
The judge did not provide any further explanation, saying he will issue an opinion explaining the reasoning underlying his order later this week.
As a result of the dismissal, Friedman said, the CNMI's motion to prevent the implementation of certain provisions of the federalization law, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act, is moot. The Act is also known as Public Law 110-229.
Friedman granted the U.S. government's motion to dismiss the complaint.
Friedman first heard oral arguments on March 12, 2009, on the U.S. government's motion to dismiss the complaint and the CNMI's first motion for a preliminary injunction.
The CNMI then filed an amended complaint, adding a claim that, according to the judge, is not relevant to the motions.
In the CNMI's amended complaint, it named as defendants the U.S.A., U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, DHS, U.S. Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and U.S. Labor.
The CNMI, through the Jenner & Block law firm, asked the court to prevent these defendants from acting in violation of the Covenant and urged the court to issue a permanent ban against the implementation of federalization in the CNMI.
In Count 1, the CNMI claimed that federalization is in violation of sections 103 and 105 of the Covenant.
Section 103 of the Covenant authorizes the Commonwealth to exercise the right to local self-government and to govern itself with respect to its internal affairs in accordance with its Constitution. Section 105 of the Covenant forbids the U.S. from abrogating the Commonwealth's right to local self-government without its consent.
The CNMI argued that one aspect of the right to local self-government is the right to regulate internal labor and economic affairs and to secure the economic prosperity of local residents.
Jenner & Block said the some provisions of Public Law 110-229 abrogate the Commonwealth's right to local self-government by denying the Commonwealth the right to regulate its local workforce and economy.
The Commonwealth has not consented to this abrogation of its rights under the Covenant, the law firm said.
In Count 2, the CNMI alleged that federalization is in violation of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Under the fundamental structural principle of limited powers that animates the U.S. Constitution, Jenner & Block said, Congress could not enact a law that imposes such a “burdensome, discriminatory and onerous federal regulatory regime” upon a state where the law was passed in a defective political process.
The law firm said the CNRA exceeds Congress' Article 1 powers to enact legislation with respect to the Commonwealth.
The CNMI asked the court to stop the implementation of CNRA provisions that “impose a burdensome, discriminatory and onerous federal regulatory regime on the Commonwealth.”
Count 3 of the amended complaint refers to alleged violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Jenner & Block argued that the defendants violated the APA by promulgating the regulations required by Public Law 110-229 without giving the CNMI and other stakeholders notice and an opportunity to comment.
This claim is still pending in court.
Jenner & Block said the defendants promulgated the DHS' Interim Permit Rule without notice and comment, in violation of the APA.
DHS, the law firm said, cannot establish “good cause” for its failure to comply with the notice and comment requirements of the APA.
DHS is set to implement federal immigration laws in the CNMI on Nov. 28, under the authority provided by the CNRA.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
The judge handling the lawsuit filed by the CNMI government to block the federal takeover of the local immigration system dismissed yesterday two of the three-count lawsuit, saying the CNMI failed to prove its case.
“After careful consideration of the parties' papers, their exhibits, the relevant case law, the statute and the Covenant, the court concludes that the [CNMI] has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to Counts I and II of its amended complaint, and that those claims therefore should be dismissed,” said U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Paul L. Friedman in a two-page order.
The judge did not provide any further explanation, saying he will issue an opinion explaining the reasoning underlying his order later this week.
As a result of the dismissal, Friedman said, the CNMI's motion to prevent the implementation of certain provisions of the federalization law, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act, is moot. The Act is also known as Public Law 110-229.
Friedman granted the U.S. government's motion to dismiss the complaint.
Friedman first heard oral arguments on March 12, 2009, on the U.S. government's motion to dismiss the complaint and the CNMI's first motion for a preliminary injunction.
The CNMI then filed an amended complaint, adding a claim that, according to the judge, is not relevant to the motions.
In the CNMI's amended complaint, it named as defendants the U.S.A., U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, DHS, U.S. Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and U.S. Labor.
The CNMI, through the Jenner & Block law firm, asked the court to prevent these defendants from acting in violation of the Covenant and urged the court to issue a permanent ban against the implementation of federalization in the CNMI.
In Count 1, the CNMI claimed that federalization is in violation of sections 103 and 105 of the Covenant.
Section 103 of the Covenant authorizes the Commonwealth to exercise the right to local self-government and to govern itself with respect to its internal affairs in accordance with its Constitution. Section 105 of the Covenant forbids the U.S. from abrogating the Commonwealth's right to local self-government without its consent.
The CNMI argued that one aspect of the right to local self-government is the right to regulate internal labor and economic affairs and to secure the economic prosperity of local residents.
Jenner & Block said the some provisions of Public Law 110-229 abrogate the Commonwealth's right to local self-government by denying the Commonwealth the right to regulate its local workforce and economy.
The Commonwealth has not consented to this abrogation of its rights under the Covenant, the law firm said.
In Count 2, the CNMI alleged that federalization is in violation of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Under the fundamental structural principle of limited powers that animates the U.S. Constitution, Jenner & Block said, Congress could not enact a law that imposes such a “burdensome, discriminatory and onerous federal regulatory regime” upon a state where the law was passed in a defective political process.
The law firm said the CNRA exceeds Congress' Article 1 powers to enact legislation with respect to the Commonwealth.
The CNMI asked the court to stop the implementation of CNRA provisions that “impose a burdensome, discriminatory and onerous federal regulatory regime on the Commonwealth.”
Count 3 of the amended complaint refers to alleged violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Jenner & Block argued that the defendants violated the APA by promulgating the regulations required by Public Law 110-229 without giving the CNMI and other stakeholders notice and an opportunity to comment.
This claim is still pending in court.
Jenner & Block said the defendants promulgated the DHS' Interim Permit Rule without notice and comment, in violation of the APA.
DHS, the law firm said, cannot establish “good cause” for its failure to comply with the notice and comment requirements of the APA.
DHS is set to implement federal immigration laws in the CNMI on Nov. 28, under the authority provided by the CNRA.
All set for federal takeover
All set for federal takeover
Wednesday, 25 November 2009 00:00 By Gemma Q. Casas - Reporter
THE U.S. Department of Homeland Security will take control of the islands’ immigration system as scheduled on Saturday following federal Judge Paul Friedman’s decision to dismiss Gov. Benigno R. Fitial’s lawsuit.
Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia placed the case under advisement last March 12, 2009.
The first complaint seeks a permanent injunction on labor-related provisions of the federalization law, or U.S. P.L. 110-229, on grounds that it infringes on the CNMI’s right to self-government under its Covenant with the United States. It was filed on Sept. 12, 2008.
In November of the same year, the governor, through the Jenner & Block law firm and his special legal counsel Howard P. Willens, amended the complaint and sought for a preliminary injunction citing constitutional violations as grounds.
The governor said federalization law is an economic disaster for the CNMI’s economy because it will reduce to zero the number of foreign workers on the islands by Dec. 31, 2014.
The U.S. Department of Justice asked the federal court to dismiss the case, saying the CNMI’s arguments are purely speculative and stressed that local immigration policy had opened up the islands to security risks, including from Russian Mafia and Chinese triads.
DOJ also noted that the Covenant allows the U.S. Congress to apply federal immigration law to the islands.
In his Nov. 23 two-page order dismissing the case, Friedman said the CNMI “failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to counts I and II of its amended complaint and that those claims therefore should be dismissed.”
The judge said the CNMI’s motion for a preliminary injunction is moot.
He said an opinion regarding the court’s reasoning for its order will follow.
The administration is paying Jenner & Block a retainer of $50,000 a month for its legal services, excluding out-of-pocket reimbursements.
Saipan Independent Rep. Tina Sablan, who forced the administration to release the billing records, said they had known that the lawsuit was unlikely to prevail.
“Even Howard Willens and Jenner & Block acknowledged months ago, before filing the lawsuit in the first place, that the CNMI was likely to lose. Judge Friedman’s dismissal should not come as a surprise to anyone, not even the administration,” she told the Variety in an e-mail.
The lawmaker hopes to get the remaining financial records further detailing how public funds were spent for the lawsuit.
The financial records she obtained were up to April of this year only.
“I hope that the financial records will be fully disclosed now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, and that the CNMI can finally move on toward mending relations with the federal government and adjusting to the fact that federal immigration law will apply here starting on Nov. 28,” she said.
“The CNMI has been fighting federalization for so long, and fighting so hard to maintain the status quo, that we have missed the opportunities to build a better, stronger, more self-reliant CNMI. Now is the time to open our eyes and wake up to the reality that times are changing. The old labor and immigration system is coming to an end. We have to adapt,” she added.
In a statement, Fitial said: “We had excellent representation from our lawyers in Washington, D.C. We respect Judge Friedman and appreciate the time and careful consideration he gave to this case. We look forward to examining his opinion before making any decisions about our future course of action on this matter.”
The judge, he added, is expected to separately rule this week on the CNMI’s third complaint, an emergency injunctive relief to stop the interim final regulations on transitional worker program on grounds that they failed to comply with the notice and comment provisions of the U.S. Administrative Procedures Act.
Fitial said Willens is “traveling to Washington this Sunday and will be consulting with our D.C. lawyers on Monday. After those discussions, I expect to receive a recommendation from counsel regarding both of Judge Friedman’s decisions.”
The ruling came almost a day after the governor won the runoff election.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009 00:00 By Gemma Q. Casas - Reporter
THE U.S. Department of Homeland Security will take control of the islands’ immigration system as scheduled on Saturday following federal Judge Paul Friedman’s decision to dismiss Gov. Benigno R. Fitial’s lawsuit.
Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia placed the case under advisement last March 12, 2009.
The first complaint seeks a permanent injunction on labor-related provisions of the federalization law, or U.S. P.L. 110-229, on grounds that it infringes on the CNMI’s right to self-government under its Covenant with the United States. It was filed on Sept. 12, 2008.
In November of the same year, the governor, through the Jenner & Block law firm and his special legal counsel Howard P. Willens, amended the complaint and sought for a preliminary injunction citing constitutional violations as grounds.
The governor said federalization law is an economic disaster for the CNMI’s economy because it will reduce to zero the number of foreign workers on the islands by Dec. 31, 2014.
The U.S. Department of Justice asked the federal court to dismiss the case, saying the CNMI’s arguments are purely speculative and stressed that local immigration policy had opened up the islands to security risks, including from Russian Mafia and Chinese triads.
DOJ also noted that the Covenant allows the U.S. Congress to apply federal immigration law to the islands.
In his Nov. 23 two-page order dismissing the case, Friedman said the CNMI “failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to counts I and II of its amended complaint and that those claims therefore should be dismissed.”
The judge said the CNMI’s motion for a preliminary injunction is moot.
He said an opinion regarding the court’s reasoning for its order will follow.
The administration is paying Jenner & Block a retainer of $50,000 a month for its legal services, excluding out-of-pocket reimbursements.
Saipan Independent Rep. Tina Sablan, who forced the administration to release the billing records, said they had known that the lawsuit was unlikely to prevail.
“Even Howard Willens and Jenner & Block acknowledged months ago, before filing the lawsuit in the first place, that the CNMI was likely to lose. Judge Friedman’s dismissal should not come as a surprise to anyone, not even the administration,” she told the Variety in an e-mail.
The lawmaker hopes to get the remaining financial records further detailing how public funds were spent for the lawsuit.
The financial records she obtained were up to April of this year only.
“I hope that the financial records will be fully disclosed now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, and that the CNMI can finally move on toward mending relations with the federal government and adjusting to the fact that federal immigration law will apply here starting on Nov. 28,” she said.
“The CNMI has been fighting federalization for so long, and fighting so hard to maintain the status quo, that we have missed the opportunities to build a better, stronger, more self-reliant CNMI. Now is the time to open our eyes and wake up to the reality that times are changing. The old labor and immigration system is coming to an end. We have to adapt,” she added.
In a statement, Fitial said: “We had excellent representation from our lawyers in Washington, D.C. We respect Judge Friedman and appreciate the time and careful consideration he gave to this case. We look forward to examining his opinion before making any decisions about our future course of action on this matter.”
The judge, he added, is expected to separately rule this week on the CNMI’s third complaint, an emergency injunctive relief to stop the interim final regulations on transitional worker program on grounds that they failed to comply with the notice and comment provisions of the U.S. Administrative Procedures Act.
Fitial said Willens is “traveling to Washington this Sunday and will be consulting with our D.C. lawyers on Monday. After those discussions, I expect to receive a recommendation from counsel regarding both of Judge Friedman’s decisions.”
The ruling came almost a day after the governor won the runoff election.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Self-rule opportunities missed
Self-rule opportunities missed
Monday, 16 November 2009 04:21
by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff
EVOLVING in an ever changing post-9/11 political arena will be the best course of action for United States territories seeking political self determination, United Nations advisor, Dr. Carlyle Corbin told attendees during a recently held University of Guam public forum.
Corbin stated that the issue of commonwealth brought about by the government of Guam during the 1990s was complimented with great promise.
“The analysis that was done at that time was very critical. The CNMI covenant was in place for a few years prior to that and served as a very good basis for the attainment of certain autonomous powers,” he said, adding that “Had the Guam commonwealth been allowed to go forth, then at this point, 20 years later, if there is a definition of what is achievable, the territory would have evolved constitutionally and politically far more.”
The UN advisor also stated that most requests made by U.S. territories for further autonomy are often blocked by bureaucrats.
“In fact, we have not moved forward and there has been some degree of stagnation in terms of the political development,” he said.
Corbin added that all of the U.S. territories have done many things internally to try and address the issue of self determination, and break through the parameters of self determination status to determine what is possible and what is not. However, Corbin also cited that fact that prior efforts were also undertaken in a “pre-9/11” scenario. Additionally, the U.N. advisor stated that there is now a different view on “how much autonomy is given within the current arrangement.”
“All of these things are now continually evolving and the territories have to continue to follow, determine, and make their case, both in the U.S. Congressional arena and in the international arena as well.”
With to regards to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Corbin said that the resolution was adopted by consensus.
“It is not something that countries sign on to, necessarily,” he explained. “As a consensus, all countries around the world have agreed and supported with the exception of some who have made reservations on specific parts or specific paragraphs of the text.”
Corbin noted that there were “decades worth of favorable decisions in the United Nations” that were not implemented.
“If many of those were implemented, there would probably be fewer territories on the United Nations’ list,” he said. “Certainly, if those recommendations that were made by the United Nations with respect to Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands have been implemented, then none of us would be having this discussion today. We would be having another discussion.”
Monday, 16 November 2009 04:21
by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff
EVOLVING in an ever changing post-9/11 political arena will be the best course of action for United States territories seeking political self determination, United Nations advisor, Dr. Carlyle Corbin told attendees during a recently held University of Guam public forum.
Corbin stated that the issue of commonwealth brought about by the government of Guam during the 1990s was complimented with great promise.
“The analysis that was done at that time was very critical. The CNMI covenant was in place for a few years prior to that and served as a very good basis for the attainment of certain autonomous powers,” he said, adding that “Had the Guam commonwealth been allowed to go forth, then at this point, 20 years later, if there is a definition of what is achievable, the territory would have evolved constitutionally and politically far more.”
The UN advisor also stated that most requests made by U.S. territories for further autonomy are often blocked by bureaucrats.
“In fact, we have not moved forward and there has been some degree of stagnation in terms of the political development,” he said.
Corbin added that all of the U.S. territories have done many things internally to try and address the issue of self determination, and break through the parameters of self determination status to determine what is possible and what is not. However, Corbin also cited that fact that prior efforts were also undertaken in a “pre-9/11” scenario. Additionally, the U.N. advisor stated that there is now a different view on “how much autonomy is given within the current arrangement.”
“All of these things are now continually evolving and the territories have to continue to follow, determine, and make their case, both in the U.S. Congressional arena and in the international arena as well.”
With to regards to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Corbin said that the resolution was adopted by consensus.
“It is not something that countries sign on to, necessarily,” he explained. “As a consensus, all countries around the world have agreed and supported with the exception of some who have made reservations on specific parts or specific paragraphs of the text.”
Corbin noted that there were “decades worth of favorable decisions in the United Nations” that were not implemented.
“If many of those were implemented, there would probably be fewer territories on the United Nations’ list,” he said. “Certainly, if those recommendations that were made by the United Nations with respect to Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands have been implemented, then none of us would be having this discussion today. We would be having another discussion.”
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
DC court to hear oral arguments on Nov. 23
DC court to hear oral arguments on Nov. 23
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 00:00 By Gemma Q. Casas - Reporter
On Nov. 23, the federal court in Washington, D.C. will hear oral arguments on whether it should grant an emergency injunctive relief to stop the implementation of the federalization law’s interim final regulations for the transitional worker program.
Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia also announced he will separately make a ruling on the CNMI’s motion for a preliminary injunction before the federalization law’s implementation on Nov. 28.
According to Gov. Benigno R. Fitial’s special legal counsel, Howard P. Willens, Friedman told the Department of Justice to file its response to the CNMI’s emergency injunctive relief by Friday, Nov. 13 (Saturday local time).
The CNMI filed its injunctive relief motion on Nov. 2. This motion does not require a full-trial and the judge could decide on the matter immediately, Willens said.
The CNMI contends that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security failed to follow the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act when it adopted the transitional worker program on an interim final basis.
“The commonwealth will likely succeed on the merits of its claim that these regulations were promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, because it is undisputed that defendants promulgated the regulations without providing notice and an opportunity for comment to the commonwealth and other affected stakeholders as required by the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553, and because defendants cannot establish ‘good cause’ for this failure, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(B),” the CNMI said.
Should the CNMI’s argument prevail, DHS would likely be forced to start over again the process in adopting the transitional worker program regulations.
A 60-day public comment period is commonly set aside before national regulations are adopted.
If the preliminary injunction is granted, the U.S. cannot implement certain provisions under the federalization law on Nov. 28.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 00:00 By Gemma Q. Casas - Reporter
On Nov. 23, the federal court in Washington, D.C. will hear oral arguments on whether it should grant an emergency injunctive relief to stop the implementation of the federalization law’s interim final regulations for the transitional worker program.
Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia also announced he will separately make a ruling on the CNMI’s motion for a preliminary injunction before the federalization law’s implementation on Nov. 28.
According to Gov. Benigno R. Fitial’s special legal counsel, Howard P. Willens, Friedman told the Department of Justice to file its response to the CNMI’s emergency injunctive relief by Friday, Nov. 13 (Saturday local time).
The CNMI filed its injunctive relief motion on Nov. 2. This motion does not require a full-trial and the judge could decide on the matter immediately, Willens said.
The CNMI contends that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security failed to follow the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act when it adopted the transitional worker program on an interim final basis.
“The commonwealth will likely succeed on the merits of its claim that these regulations were promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, because it is undisputed that defendants promulgated the regulations without providing notice and an opportunity for comment to the commonwealth and other affected stakeholders as required by the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553, and because defendants cannot establish ‘good cause’ for this failure, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(B),” the CNMI said.
Should the CNMI’s argument prevail, DHS would likely be forced to start over again the process in adopting the transitional worker program regulations.
A 60-day public comment period is commonly set aside before national regulations are adopted.
If the preliminary injunction is granted, the U.S. cannot implement certain provisions under the federalization law on Nov. 28.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
CNMI asks court to declare DHS regulations invalid
CNMI asks court to declare DHS regulations invalid
Thursday, November 05, 2009
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
The CNMI has asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to declare as invalid the Department of Homeland Security's interim final rule on the CNMI transitional worker program.
The CNMI, through the Jenner & Block law firm, asked the court to rule that the manner with which DHS promulgated the interim permit rule violates the Administrative Act.
Jenner & Block stressed that the “societal, familiar, and personal damage” that will be caused by Public Law 110-229, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (federalization law), “is as severe as its economic impact.” The law firm said the law will force thousands of U.S. citizen children to separate from their parents who are not U.S. citizens.
In the CNMI's amended complained filed on Nov. 2, Jenner & Block also questioned the legality of the interim final rule.
The complaint, which named the United States, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, DHS, U.S. Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and U.S. Labor as defendants-also asked the court to prevent these defendants from acting in violation of the Covenant.
The CNMI wants the court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing federalization in the CNMI.
The law firm asserted that the defendants violated APA by promulgating the regulations required by Public Law 110-229 without notice to the CNMI and other affected stakeholders and giving them an opportunity to comment.
DHS issued the interim rule on Oct. 27. It is set to go into effect on Nov. 28, 2009, the effective date of the CNRA.
Jenner & Block said the CNRA will strike a devastating, and perhaps fatal, blow on the economy by prohibiting the Commonwealth from ensuring an adequate supply of labor for local residents and businesses.
The law firm said CNRA imposes an uncertain permitting system for an indefinite period of time on about two-thirds of the Commonwealth's private sector workforce and requires that the number of Commonwealth-only permits be reduced to zero by the end of 2014, the end date for the transition period.
“As the number of Commonwealth-only permits is reduced, foreign workers lawfully admitted under CNMI law will have to leave the Commonwealth if they are unable to obtain a visa under the narrow and specialized classifications of the federal immigration laws or if their employers cannot obtain the necessary permits from that steadily shrinking pool of permits,” the law firm said.
Jenner & Block said most of the foreign workers will not be able to qualify for federal visas because existing federal immigration laws do not allow visas for low-skill jobs that are “permanent” rather than “temporary.”
“In addition, because no 'Commonwealth-only' permits can be issued or can authorize employment after 2014, whatever relief is potentially available during the transition period is necessarily temporary,” the law firm said.
The law firm pointed out that the local workforce is not enough to compensate for the labor deficit the CNRA will create.
The overall U.S. citizen population of about 30,000 and the U.S. citizen workforce of about 11,000 have remained constant in size for most of the past decade.
“There is no reasonable basis for assuming that the U.S. citizen population can produce a workforce of sufficient size to meet the needs of the CNMI economy,” the law firm said.
The CNRA, Jenner & Block said, has placed the CNMI in a legal and economic limbo of indefinite duration.
“Such an environment is toxic to economic development,” the law firm said, citing business plans for new ventures that are already being revised or canceled, foreign investment being withdrawn, among other things.
“No other city, county, or state in America has a federal bureaucracy exercising plenary authority over two-thirds of its private sector labor force,” the law firm stressed.
In addition, the CNRA will also rend its social fabric, the law firm said.
The 24,000 alien workers and their families make up roughly 40 percent of the Commonwealth's total population. Jenner & Block said many of these people have lived in the CNMI for over a decade and include thousands of U.S. citizen children.
Under the provisions of CNRA, the complaint said, these children's parents are subject to expulsion from the Commonwealth over the next several years, even if they otherwise could have remained gainfully employed in the CNMI.
When required to leave, the law firm said, these parents will be forced to either separate from their children and find another home for them in the CNMI, or to take these U.S. citizen children away from their home country and the opportunities and benefits of growing up in the U.S.
Jenner & Block said the challenged provisions of CNRA abrogate the CNMI's right of local self-government by denying the Commonwealth the right to regulate its local workforce and economy.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
The CNMI has asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to declare as invalid the Department of Homeland Security's interim final rule on the CNMI transitional worker program.
The CNMI, through the Jenner & Block law firm, asked the court to rule that the manner with which DHS promulgated the interim permit rule violates the Administrative Act.
Jenner & Block stressed that the “societal, familiar, and personal damage” that will be caused by Public Law 110-229, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (federalization law), “is as severe as its economic impact.” The law firm said the law will force thousands of U.S. citizen children to separate from their parents who are not U.S. citizens.
In the CNMI's amended complained filed on Nov. 2, Jenner & Block also questioned the legality of the interim final rule.
The complaint, which named the United States, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, DHS, U.S. Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and U.S. Labor as defendants-also asked the court to prevent these defendants from acting in violation of the Covenant.
The CNMI wants the court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing federalization in the CNMI.
The law firm asserted that the defendants violated APA by promulgating the regulations required by Public Law 110-229 without notice to the CNMI and other affected stakeholders and giving them an opportunity to comment.
DHS issued the interim rule on Oct. 27. It is set to go into effect on Nov. 28, 2009, the effective date of the CNRA.
Jenner & Block said the CNRA will strike a devastating, and perhaps fatal, blow on the economy by prohibiting the Commonwealth from ensuring an adequate supply of labor for local residents and businesses.
The law firm said CNRA imposes an uncertain permitting system for an indefinite period of time on about two-thirds of the Commonwealth's private sector workforce and requires that the number of Commonwealth-only permits be reduced to zero by the end of 2014, the end date for the transition period.
“As the number of Commonwealth-only permits is reduced, foreign workers lawfully admitted under CNMI law will have to leave the Commonwealth if they are unable to obtain a visa under the narrow and specialized classifications of the federal immigration laws or if their employers cannot obtain the necessary permits from that steadily shrinking pool of permits,” the law firm said.
Jenner & Block said most of the foreign workers will not be able to qualify for federal visas because existing federal immigration laws do not allow visas for low-skill jobs that are “permanent” rather than “temporary.”
“In addition, because no 'Commonwealth-only' permits can be issued or can authorize employment after 2014, whatever relief is potentially available during the transition period is necessarily temporary,” the law firm said.
The law firm pointed out that the local workforce is not enough to compensate for the labor deficit the CNRA will create.
The overall U.S. citizen population of about 30,000 and the U.S. citizen workforce of about 11,000 have remained constant in size for most of the past decade.
“There is no reasonable basis for assuming that the U.S. citizen population can produce a workforce of sufficient size to meet the needs of the CNMI economy,” the law firm said.
The CNRA, Jenner & Block said, has placed the CNMI in a legal and economic limbo of indefinite duration.
“Such an environment is toxic to economic development,” the law firm said, citing business plans for new ventures that are already being revised or canceled, foreign investment being withdrawn, among other things.
“No other city, county, or state in America has a federal bureaucracy exercising plenary authority over two-thirds of its private sector labor force,” the law firm stressed.
In addition, the CNRA will also rend its social fabric, the law firm said.
The 24,000 alien workers and their families make up roughly 40 percent of the Commonwealth's total population. Jenner & Block said many of these people have lived in the CNMI for over a decade and include thousands of U.S. citizen children.
Under the provisions of CNRA, the complaint said, these children's parents are subject to expulsion from the Commonwealth over the next several years, even if they otherwise could have remained gainfully employed in the CNMI.
When required to leave, the law firm said, these parents will be forced to either separate from their children and find another home for them in the CNMI, or to take these U.S. citizen children away from their home country and the opportunities and benefits of growing up in the U.S.
Jenner & Block said the challenged provisions of CNRA abrogate the CNMI's right of local self-government by denying the Commonwealth the right to regulate its local workforce and economy.
Monday, November 02, 2009
CNMI should question federal limits
CNMI should question federal limits
Monday, November 02, 2009
By JUAN T. LIZAMA
Special to the Saipan Tribune
Federalization is one of the key issues in the upcoming gubernatorial election. The issue is also before the federal court in Washington, thanks to Gov. Benigno Fitial's lawsuit. That lawsuit asks the court to determine whether Congress over-reached in enacting laws that will shift the balance of authority in key areas from our local government to the U.S. federal government.
The federal government first tried to take over in the late 1990s, in an effort to stop what was perceived to be human rights abuses by garment factories. The original purpose of the federal takeover had nothing to do with homeland security. But the original effort failed.
Then, the federal takeover bill resurfaced. It was passed by Congress not because it was still needed. However, by the time the federal takeover was passed, all but about two garment factories were gone. The last two are now gone.
Enter our Governor. His lawsuit has provided us with an opportunity to explain this important recent history, and to be heard in the proper forum for settling disputes between the CNMI and federal government. Governor Fitial has taken a stance on the behalf of those of us who believe the U.S. Congress exceeded their scope of legislative authority.
It is important to recognize that throughout U.S. history there has been a political tug-of-war going on between those who support states' rights and believe that federal power should be narrow, and those who favor a strong federal government with broad powers. The U.S. Founding Fathers themselves argued strongly over this issue in drafting the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was the leader of the states' rights group. He understood that local government requires real authority to provide for the needs of the local community.
Certainly no one would say that Thomas Jefferson was less of an American because he stood up for the rights of local government. The same goes for Governor Fitial and all those who appreciate and support his bold act of going before the courts.
Federalization is not an “inevitable consequence” of our relationship with the U.S. The Covenant was designed to ensure that the CNMI would retain important local autonomy even in midst of a powerful federal government. 'What limits does the Covenant places on federal power?'-that is a question worth asking each and every time a federal law impacting our islands is passed by Congress, even if we have to ask those questions in federal court.
While it is true that the United States can take control of our immigration, the United States has no right to interfere with our labor laws. The Covenant guarantees to us “self government” and that includes setting all terms and conditions for who is employed here. The federal takeover goes beyond immigration and gets into how we control employment. (Remember, the original purpose of the federal takeover was to stop labor abuses by garment factories). The fact that the federal takeover goes beyond immigration control violates the Covenant. Therefore, the federal takeover is both unjustified and unlawful.
Our priority should be to give Governor Fitial a chance to litigate the issues. He is doing that now in the proper forum for all of us.
Juan Lizama is a former associate judge at the CNMI Superior Court.
Monday, November 02, 2009
By JUAN T. LIZAMA
Special to the Saipan Tribune
Federalization is one of the key issues in the upcoming gubernatorial election. The issue is also before the federal court in Washington, thanks to Gov. Benigno Fitial's lawsuit. That lawsuit asks the court to determine whether Congress over-reached in enacting laws that will shift the balance of authority in key areas from our local government to the U.S. federal government.
The federal government first tried to take over in the late 1990s, in an effort to stop what was perceived to be human rights abuses by garment factories. The original purpose of the federal takeover had nothing to do with homeland security. But the original effort failed.
Then, the federal takeover bill resurfaced. It was passed by Congress not because it was still needed. However, by the time the federal takeover was passed, all but about two garment factories were gone. The last two are now gone.
Enter our Governor. His lawsuit has provided us with an opportunity to explain this important recent history, and to be heard in the proper forum for settling disputes between the CNMI and federal government. Governor Fitial has taken a stance on the behalf of those of us who believe the U.S. Congress exceeded their scope of legislative authority.
It is important to recognize that throughout U.S. history there has been a political tug-of-war going on between those who support states' rights and believe that federal power should be narrow, and those who favor a strong federal government with broad powers. The U.S. Founding Fathers themselves argued strongly over this issue in drafting the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was the leader of the states' rights group. He understood that local government requires real authority to provide for the needs of the local community.
Certainly no one would say that Thomas Jefferson was less of an American because he stood up for the rights of local government. The same goes for Governor Fitial and all those who appreciate and support his bold act of going before the courts.
Federalization is not an “inevitable consequence” of our relationship with the U.S. The Covenant was designed to ensure that the CNMI would retain important local autonomy even in midst of a powerful federal government. 'What limits does the Covenant places on federal power?'-that is a question worth asking each and every time a federal law impacting our islands is passed by Congress, even if we have to ask those questions in federal court.
While it is true that the United States can take control of our immigration, the United States has no right to interfere with our labor laws. The Covenant guarantees to us “self government” and that includes setting all terms and conditions for who is employed here. The federal takeover goes beyond immigration and gets into how we control employment. (Remember, the original purpose of the federal takeover was to stop labor abuses by garment factories). The fact that the federal takeover goes beyond immigration control violates the Covenant. Therefore, the federal takeover is both unjustified and unlawful.
Our priority should be to give Governor Fitial a chance to litigate the issues. He is doing that now in the proper forum for all of us.
Juan Lizama is a former associate judge at the CNMI Superior Court.
'DHS rules will wipe out two-thirds of the alien workforce'
'DHS rules will wipe out two-thirds of the alien workforce'
NMI FILES SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENTS
Monday, November 02, 2009
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
The CNMI government has filed a supplemental memorandum supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction against federalization by citing the Department of Homeland Security's publication of its interim final rule.
Gov. Benigno R. Fitial said yesterday the “interim final rule” was a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, so he asked his lawyers to challenge it.
“These regulations affect all elements of our community-our struggling economy, our investors and employers, our entire workforce, and our senior citizens,” said Fitial in a statement.
The CNMI, through counsel Jenner and Block LLP, filed the supplemental memorandum on Oct. 30, 2009, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Howard P. Willens, special legal counsel to Fitial, also signed the memorandum. The U.S. government did not oppose the filing.
According to the CNMI's counsel, the interim permit rule sets forth the regulations that will govern the transition worker permit program, which is being challenged by the Commonwealth.
The Jenner and Block law firm said the defendants also issued an “interim final rule,” scheduled to go into effect on Nov. 28, 2009, that purports to extend U.S. immigration laws to the CNMI.
“The Interim Permit Rule and Interim Immigration Rule further establish why the CNMI's motion for injunctive relief should be granted,” Jenner and Block said.
First, it said, the issuance of the interim rules removes any doubt that the CNMI has standing and that its claims are “ripe.”
“Defendants have repeatedly-and incorrectly-argued that the CNMI's claims were speculative and unripe because regulations implementing the [Consolidated Natural Resources] Act had not been issued,” the law firm said. The CNRA contains the law that extends federal labor and immigration laws to the CNMI.
Second, Jenner and Block said, the interim rules demonstrate that the CNMI accurately portrayed the Act's consequences upon the CNMI, and that these consequences far exceed the bounds of Congress' authority to regulate the CNMI under the Covenant.
The interim permit rule, the law firm said, creates a scheme for issuing a new CNMI-only transitional worker permit (CW permits) to foreign workers in the CNMI. Under the rule, DHS-and not the CNMI-shall decide which employers shall obtain CW permits for which workers.
“This regulatory scheme ousts local control over two-thirds of the Commonwealth's private-sector workforce, dictates the ultimate removal of that population from the CNMI, and barely recognizes, much less accommodates, the devastating economic consequences this will have upon the Commonwealth,” Jenner and Block said.
The law firm said the manner in which DHS issued the interim rules further confirms the injuries to local self-government that are being made under the purported authority of the Act.
Jenner and Block noted that, although the CNRA was enacted nearly 18 months ago, DHS waited to issue the interim rules just 31 days before the Act's effective date.
DHS did not provide notice and did not allow comments from the CNMI and others in the Commonwealth affected by these regulations, the law firm said.
“This is a blatant violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Commonwealth is preparing papers, which it hopes to file early next week, seeking leave to amend its complaint to add a claim challenging this violation of the APA and seeking emergency injunctive relief and expedited briefing,” the law firm added.
Jenner and Block pointed out that these are regulations that over the next two to five years will wipe out two-thirds of the CNMI's private sector workforce.
“The defendants have promulgated these rules by the force of central fiat from bureaucrats in Washington D.C., with no local input or transparency whatsoever, with not even an effort to solicit comments from the people most affected,” the law firm said.
In his comment, Fitial said DHS urged dismissal of the CNMI's lawsuit because “DHS has not announced rules or regulations” and that therefore the Commonwealth “has no idea what the transitional period visa program will provide, who will be eligible, or what impact it will have on foreign workers.”
“I believe that these new regulations dramatically support our contentions that the 'labor provisions' of the law violate our right of self-government guaranteed by the Covenant,” Fitial said.
The governor said they want the court to consider these regulations before reaching a final decision on the CNMI's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Fitial said DHS published the interim final rule without complying with the notice and comment provisions of APA.
“The people of the Commonwealth have the right under this Act to participate in the rulemaking process and to have their comments considered carefully and openly by the department before any final regulations are issued 30 days before their effective date,” Fitial said.
NMI FILES SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENTS
Monday, November 02, 2009
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
The CNMI government has filed a supplemental memorandum supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction against federalization by citing the Department of Homeland Security's publication of its interim final rule.
Gov. Benigno R. Fitial said yesterday the “interim final rule” was a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, so he asked his lawyers to challenge it.
“These regulations affect all elements of our community-our struggling economy, our investors and employers, our entire workforce, and our senior citizens,” said Fitial in a statement.
The CNMI, through counsel Jenner and Block LLP, filed the supplemental memorandum on Oct. 30, 2009, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Howard P. Willens, special legal counsel to Fitial, also signed the memorandum. The U.S. government did not oppose the filing.
According to the CNMI's counsel, the interim permit rule sets forth the regulations that will govern the transition worker permit program, which is being challenged by the Commonwealth.
The Jenner and Block law firm said the defendants also issued an “interim final rule,” scheduled to go into effect on Nov. 28, 2009, that purports to extend U.S. immigration laws to the CNMI.
“The Interim Permit Rule and Interim Immigration Rule further establish why the CNMI's motion for injunctive relief should be granted,” Jenner and Block said.
First, it said, the issuance of the interim rules removes any doubt that the CNMI has standing and that its claims are “ripe.”
“Defendants have repeatedly-and incorrectly-argued that the CNMI's claims were speculative and unripe because regulations implementing the [Consolidated Natural Resources] Act had not been issued,” the law firm said. The CNRA contains the law that extends federal labor and immigration laws to the CNMI.
Second, Jenner and Block said, the interim rules demonstrate that the CNMI accurately portrayed the Act's consequences upon the CNMI, and that these consequences far exceed the bounds of Congress' authority to regulate the CNMI under the Covenant.
The interim permit rule, the law firm said, creates a scheme for issuing a new CNMI-only transitional worker permit (CW permits) to foreign workers in the CNMI. Under the rule, DHS-and not the CNMI-shall decide which employers shall obtain CW permits for which workers.
“This regulatory scheme ousts local control over two-thirds of the Commonwealth's private-sector workforce, dictates the ultimate removal of that population from the CNMI, and barely recognizes, much less accommodates, the devastating economic consequences this will have upon the Commonwealth,” Jenner and Block said.
The law firm said the manner in which DHS issued the interim rules further confirms the injuries to local self-government that are being made under the purported authority of the Act.
Jenner and Block noted that, although the CNRA was enacted nearly 18 months ago, DHS waited to issue the interim rules just 31 days before the Act's effective date.
DHS did not provide notice and did not allow comments from the CNMI and others in the Commonwealth affected by these regulations, the law firm said.
“This is a blatant violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Commonwealth is preparing papers, which it hopes to file early next week, seeking leave to amend its complaint to add a claim challenging this violation of the APA and seeking emergency injunctive relief and expedited briefing,” the law firm added.
Jenner and Block pointed out that these are regulations that over the next two to five years will wipe out two-thirds of the CNMI's private sector workforce.
“The defendants have promulgated these rules by the force of central fiat from bureaucrats in Washington D.C., with no local input or transparency whatsoever, with not even an effort to solicit comments from the people most affected,” the law firm said.
In his comment, Fitial said DHS urged dismissal of the CNMI's lawsuit because “DHS has not announced rules or regulations” and that therefore the Commonwealth “has no idea what the transitional period visa program will provide, who will be eligible, or what impact it will have on foreign workers.”
“I believe that these new regulations dramatically support our contentions that the 'labor provisions' of the law violate our right of self-government guaranteed by the Covenant,” Fitial said.
The governor said they want the court to consider these regulations before reaching a final decision on the CNMI's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Fitial said DHS published the interim final rule without complying with the notice and comment provisions of APA.
“The people of the Commonwealth have the right under this Act to participate in the rulemaking process and to have their comments considered carefully and openly by the department before any final regulations are issued 30 days before their effective date,” Fitial said.
Friday, October 09, 2009
CNMI Descent for Self Government and Indigenous Rights
CNMI Descent for Self Government and Indigenous Rights (Part 2 of 7). By Oscar C. Rasa. September 30, 2009, MCV Studio, Saipan MP 96950
This is URGENT!
This is URGENT!
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Torres resurrects bill to revisit NMI’s Covenant
Torres resurrects bill to revisit NMI’s Covenant
Thursday, 10 September 2009 00:00 By Gemma Q. Casas - Variety News Staff
REPRESENTATIVE Stanley T. Torres is urging his colleagues to support his bill that will create a Second Marianas Political Status Commission, saying there is a need to revisit the islands’ Covenant with the U.S. in the wake of increased military presence in the Marianas.
The Second Marianas Political and Economic Status Commission Act of 2009, or House Bill 16-271, was calendared during the House session on Tuesday.
In his speech before he introduced his bill, Torres said it’s been 34 years since the CNMI’s political union with the United States was established.
He said it’s time to revisit this union in the wake of the impending federalization of the islands’ immigration system.
The federal government’s renewed military interest in the CNMI also calls for another look at the Covenant.
“We, as a people, must decide whether the risks taken and the rewards received are commensurate with the price we will pay and if it is a worthy trade,” Torres said.
The Second Marianas Political and Economic Status Commission will have 11 voting members and two non-voting ex-officio members — the Senate president and the speaker of the House.
The commission will make studies about the present and future political and economic status of the CNMI, including the possibility of seeking independence.
The commission’s recommendations will then be put forward to the public for ratification in the next general elections.
Thursday, 10 September 2009 00:00 By Gemma Q. Casas - Variety News Staff
REPRESENTATIVE Stanley T. Torres is urging his colleagues to support his bill that will create a Second Marianas Political Status Commission, saying there is a need to revisit the islands’ Covenant with the U.S. in the wake of increased military presence in the Marianas.
The Second Marianas Political and Economic Status Commission Act of 2009, or House Bill 16-271, was calendared during the House session on Tuesday.
In his speech before he introduced his bill, Torres said it’s been 34 years since the CNMI’s political union with the United States was established.
He said it’s time to revisit this union in the wake of the impending federalization of the islands’ immigration system.
The federal government’s renewed military interest in the CNMI also calls for another look at the Covenant.
“We, as a people, must decide whether the risks taken and the rewards received are commensurate with the price we will pay and if it is a worthy trade,” Torres said.
The Second Marianas Political and Economic Status Commission will have 11 voting members and two non-voting ex-officio members — the Senate president and the speaker of the House.
The commission will make studies about the present and future political and economic status of the CNMI, including the possibility of seeking independence.
The commission’s recommendations will then be put forward to the public for ratification in the next general elections.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Indigenous group says federalization ‘violates’ NMI right to self-government
Friday, 13 March 2009 00:00 By Gemma Q. Casas - Variety News Staff
THE CNMI Descent for Self-Government and Indigenous Rights Inc. says the U.S. Congress exceeded its lawful powers under the Covenant when it enacted the federalization law, or U.S. P.L. 110-229.
The CNMI Descent filed its 48-page brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia as amicus curiae or friend of the court.
Federal Judge Paul Friedman allowed the CNMI Descent to file its brief but not to orally argue its position.
The group’s counsel, Saipan defense attorney Robert O’Connor, argued that federalization “is the infringement on, and deprivation of, the CNMI’s Covenant-guaranteed right of self-government,” and that this “is the immediate and primary injury, not any economic harm that may ultimately result from that deprivation.”
He added, “Regardless of how the law is classified or described, Congress exceeded its lawful powers under the Covenant by enacting it, and this court must therefore uphold the Covenant by enjoining its application to the CNMI.”
The lawyer said they are not seeking economic damages but rather a declaratory relief.
According to O’Connor, U.S. P.L. 110-229 not only applies federal immigration law to the CNMI but also creates a new and unique immigration law for the commonwealth.
“It purports…to establish a separate and distinct regulatory regime of indefinite duration, under which the immigration laws of the CNMI are established by the secretary of Homeland Security, in [her] sole discretion,” he said.
Gov. Benigno R. Fitial believes that federalization will destroy what is left of the CNMI’s alien labor-based economy.
The federal government, for its part, argued that the Covenant allows Congress to extend U.S. immigration law to the islands.
THE CNMI Descent for Self-Government and Indigenous Rights Inc. says the U.S. Congress exceeded its lawful powers under the Covenant when it enacted the federalization law, or U.S. P.L. 110-229.
The CNMI Descent filed its 48-page brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia as amicus curiae or friend of the court.
Federal Judge Paul Friedman allowed the CNMI Descent to file its brief but not to orally argue its position.
The group’s counsel, Saipan defense attorney Robert O’Connor, argued that federalization “is the infringement on, and deprivation of, the CNMI’s Covenant-guaranteed right of self-government,” and that this “is the immediate and primary injury, not any economic harm that may ultimately result from that deprivation.”
He added, “Regardless of how the law is classified or described, Congress exceeded its lawful powers under the Covenant by enacting it, and this court must therefore uphold the Covenant by enjoining its application to the CNMI.”
The lawyer said they are not seeking economic damages but rather a declaratory relief.
According to O’Connor, U.S. P.L. 110-229 not only applies federal immigration law to the CNMI but also creates a new and unique immigration law for the commonwealth.
“It purports…to establish a separate and distinct regulatory regime of indefinite duration, under which the immigration laws of the CNMI are established by the secretary of Homeland Security, in [her] sole discretion,” he said.
Gov. Benigno R. Fitial believes that federalization will destroy what is left of the CNMI’s alien labor-based economy.
The federal government, for its part, argued that the Covenant allows Congress to extend U.S. immigration law to the islands.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Indigenous group submits anti-federalization declaration to court
Friday, 06 February 2009 00:00 By Junhan B. Todeno - Variety News Staff
The CNMI Descent for Self-Government and Indigenous Rights has filed a motion in federal court, expressing its desire to join the governor’s federalization lawsuit.
The motion for leave to participate as amicus curiae, or “friend of court,” was signed by Washington, D.C. attorney John E. Drury and CNMI lawyer Robert J. O’Connor.
The indigenous group also filed a brief in support of the governor’s lawsuit.
According to the group, it recognizes that the federalization law “will have a profound result for the self-government of the indigenous people.”
The indigenous group said it believes that “many of the issues implicated have not been fully or adequately addressed by the parties already in the case.”
The group “accordingly seeks to participate in this case as amicus curiae, so that the court may have the benefit of its perspective on these important issues.”
The governor’s lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The group’s spokesman and adviser, former Speaker Oscar C. Rasa, , said he is confident that the court will allow their group to participate in the case.
Last December, the U.S. Department of Justice asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that under the Covenant, the U.S. Congress can extend federal immigration law to the islands.
It added that the governor’s economic disaster scenario was hypothetical and speculative
Rasa said the federal government claims that federalization law will not harm CNMI self-government.
Their group disagrees, he said, because the federal government failed to look into the constitutional issues.
“Their definition of self-government is more on institutional in nature which is by mere election and establishment of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government, but ours is constitutional,” he said.
Rasa said the issue should include the U.N. Charter and the Trusteeship Agreement to provide a “more accurate understanding of the Covenant’s guarantee of local self-government.”
He said when the U.S. government passed the federalization law it violated the self-government provisions of the Covenant.
The CNMI Descent for Self-Government and Indigenous Rights has filed a motion in federal court, expressing its desire to join the governor’s federalization lawsuit.
The motion for leave to participate as amicus curiae, or “friend of court,” was signed by Washington, D.C. attorney John E. Drury and CNMI lawyer Robert J. O’Connor.
The indigenous group also filed a brief in support of the governor’s lawsuit.
According to the group, it recognizes that the federalization law “will have a profound result for the self-government of the indigenous people.”
The indigenous group said it believes that “many of the issues implicated have not been fully or adequately addressed by the parties already in the case.”
The group “accordingly seeks to participate in this case as amicus curiae, so that the court may have the benefit of its perspective on these important issues.”
The governor’s lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The group’s spokesman and adviser, former Speaker Oscar C. Rasa, , said he is confident that the court will allow their group to participate in the case.
Last December, the U.S. Department of Justice asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that under the Covenant, the U.S. Congress can extend federal immigration law to the islands.
It added that the governor’s economic disaster scenario was hypothetical and speculative
Rasa said the federal government claims that federalization law will not harm CNMI self-government.
Their group disagrees, he said, because the federal government failed to look into the constitutional issues.
“Their definition of self-government is more on institutional in nature which is by mere election and establishment of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government, but ours is constitutional,” he said.
Rasa said the issue should include the U.N. Charter and the Trusteeship Agreement to provide a “more accurate understanding of the Covenant’s guarantee of local self-government.”
He said when the U.S. government passed the federalization law it violated the self-government provisions of the Covenant.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Fitial: Federalization law is illegal
MONDAY, 12 JANUARY 2009 00:00
BY GEMMA Q. CASAS - VARIETY NEWS STAFF
The Fitial administration told the federal court in Washington, D.C. the federalization law is illegal because it breaches the commonwealth’s Covenant with the U.S. regarding the islands’ right to self-government.
The U.S Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the islands’ lawsuit against the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and Labor should be denied, the governor’s lawyers stated.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Paul Friedman is hearing the case.
In related news, Variety learned that Homeland Security and Immigration officials from California and Washington, D.C. are arriving this week on Saipan for another fact-finding mission.
The group will hold closed-door talks with Gov. Benigno R. Fitial, other administration officials, lawmakers, the business community and other members of the community.
Last month, U.S. DOJ attorneys led by Theodore Atkinsons asked the federal court to dismiss the CNMI’s lawsuit because it lacks standing as the case was not brought by the commonwealth’s attorney general.
They also argued that under the Covenant, the U.S. Congress can extend federal immigration law to the islands and that the CNMI’s economic disaster scenario is hypothetical and speculative.
Howard P. Willens, the governor’s special legal counsel, and David W. DeBruin, William M. Hohengarten and Sharmila Sohoni of the Jenner & Block law firm, said the U.S. DOJ attorneys have “mischaracterized the commonwealth’s claims.”
They said the lawsuit “alleges specific violations of the [Covenant] between the commonwealth and the united states — claims based essentially on breach of contract, for which the harm is (and need only be) a violation of established contractual rights.”
According to the CNMI attorneys’ 30-page reply, the Covenant “guarantees the Northern Marianas the right to local self-government and control over internal affairs. This is a critical right for a small, isolated island community. In multiple ways, however, the act violates that established right, and its implementation should be enjoined.”
They said a preliminary injunction at the most would just delay the implementation of the federalization law, as embodied in U.S P.L. 110-229 or the U.S. Consolidated and Natural Resources Act, to Dec. 1, 2009.
During this period, they said the CNMI would be able to negotiate with federal authorities on how to administer its foreign worker program, which administration officials fear would end by 2014.
The federalization law, the CNMI lawyers said, “ultimately requires that all foreign workers lawfully admitted to the commonwealth must be removed unless they qualify for a federal visa — and most indisputably cannot — meaning that the act compels the removal of two-thirds of the private sector workforce and one-third of the population of the CNMI. The act strips critical revenues from the CNMI. In each of these respects, the commonwealth contends that the act violates enforceable promises made by the United States in the Covenant as a matter of law.”
The CNMI attorneys argued that the economic impact of the federalization law is imminent once it takes effect this June 1.
BY GEMMA Q. CASAS - VARIETY NEWS STAFF
The Fitial administration told the federal court in Washington, D.C. the federalization law is illegal because it breaches the commonwealth’s Covenant with the U.S. regarding the islands’ right to self-government.
The U.S Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the islands’ lawsuit against the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and Labor should be denied, the governor’s lawyers stated.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Paul Friedman is hearing the case.
In related news, Variety learned that Homeland Security and Immigration officials from California and Washington, D.C. are arriving this week on Saipan for another fact-finding mission.
The group will hold closed-door talks with Gov. Benigno R. Fitial, other administration officials, lawmakers, the business community and other members of the community.
Last month, U.S. DOJ attorneys led by Theodore Atkinsons asked the federal court to dismiss the CNMI’s lawsuit because it lacks standing as the case was not brought by the commonwealth’s attorney general.
They also argued that under the Covenant, the U.S. Congress can extend federal immigration law to the islands and that the CNMI’s economic disaster scenario is hypothetical and speculative.
Howard P. Willens, the governor’s special legal counsel, and David W. DeBruin, William M. Hohengarten and Sharmila Sohoni of the Jenner & Block law firm, said the U.S. DOJ attorneys have “mischaracterized the commonwealth’s claims.”
They said the lawsuit “alleges specific violations of the [Covenant] between the commonwealth and the united states — claims based essentially on breach of contract, for which the harm is (and need only be) a violation of established contractual rights.”
According to the CNMI attorneys’ 30-page reply, the Covenant “guarantees the Northern Marianas the right to local self-government and control over internal affairs. This is a critical right for a small, isolated island community. In multiple ways, however, the act violates that established right, and its implementation should be enjoined.”
They said a preliminary injunction at the most would just delay the implementation of the federalization law, as embodied in U.S P.L. 110-229 or the U.S. Consolidated and Natural Resources Act, to Dec. 1, 2009.
During this period, they said the CNMI would be able to negotiate with federal authorities on how to administer its foreign worker program, which administration officials fear would end by 2014.
The federalization law, the CNMI lawyers said, “ultimately requires that all foreign workers lawfully admitted to the commonwealth must be removed unless they qualify for a federal visa — and most indisputably cannot — meaning that the act compels the removal of two-thirds of the private sector workforce and one-third of the population of the CNMI. The act strips critical revenues from the CNMI. In each of these respects, the commonwealth contends that the act violates enforceable promises made by the United States in the Covenant as a matter of law.”
The CNMI attorneys argued that the economic impact of the federalization law is imminent once it takes effect this June 1.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Admin insists lawsuit met legal requirements
By Agnes E. Donato
The Fitial administration insists it met legal requirements when it filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Commonwealth against the U.S. government to block the labor provisions of the new CNMI immigration law.
Press secretary Charles P. Reyes, in response to a legal opinion issued by the Senate's staff legal counsel Michael Ernest, said, “There is no legal issue here. We are in compliance with the legal requirements, even according to Mr. Ernest's analysis.”
Ernest maintains that the CNMI Constitution allows an outside law firm to “represent the CNMI in the litigation, but it must be with the explicit authority granted from the [attorney general] and the AG must maintain some minimal control over the litigation.”
Acting attorney general Gregory Baka holds that the CNMI Constitution authorizes the AG's office to refer cases to private law firms and that delegation is not legally required to be in writing. “Hundreds of pleadings are filed annually by the OAG without the AG's personal review or signature. Yet as the deputy attorney general, I did personally review and comment upon various drafts of the complaint in our Section 903 litigation,” Baka has said in a letter previously sent to Rep. Tina Sablan.
Section 903 of the U.S.-CNMI Covenant allows either party to bring to court any dispute arising under the Covenant.
“Regarding the story on the federal lawsuit,” Reyes wrote in an email yesterday, “again, the AG did approve the filing of the lawsuit, and written authorization is not required. Secondly, Howard Willens has served as an Assistant Attorney General, as well as Special Counsel to the Governor, since January 2006, and he has represented the Commonwealth in that capacity in the local courts.”
The U.S.-based law firm, Jenner & Block, and attorney Howard Willens, special legal counsel to Governor Fitial, are representing the CNMI government in the lawsuit.
The Fitial administration insists it met legal requirements when it filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Commonwealth against the U.S. government to block the labor provisions of the new CNMI immigration law.
Press secretary Charles P. Reyes, in response to a legal opinion issued by the Senate's staff legal counsel Michael Ernest, said, “There is no legal issue here. We are in compliance with the legal requirements, even according to Mr. Ernest's analysis.”
Ernest maintains that the CNMI Constitution allows an outside law firm to “represent the CNMI in the litigation, but it must be with the explicit authority granted from the [attorney general] and the AG must maintain some minimal control over the litigation.”
Acting attorney general Gregory Baka holds that the CNMI Constitution authorizes the AG's office to refer cases to private law firms and that delegation is not legally required to be in writing. “Hundreds of pleadings are filed annually by the OAG without the AG's personal review or signature. Yet as the deputy attorney general, I did personally review and comment upon various drafts of the complaint in our Section 903 litigation,” Baka has said in a letter previously sent to Rep. Tina Sablan.
Section 903 of the U.S.-CNMI Covenant allows either party to bring to court any dispute arising under the Covenant.
“Regarding the story on the federal lawsuit,” Reyes wrote in an email yesterday, “again, the AG did approve the filing of the lawsuit, and written authorization is not required. Secondly, Howard Willens has served as an Assistant Attorney General, as well as Special Counsel to the Governor, since January 2006, and he has represented the Commonwealth in that capacity in the local courts.”
The U.S.-based law firm, Jenner & Block, and attorney Howard Willens, special legal counsel to Governor Fitial, are representing the CNMI government in the lawsuit.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Monument bid rekindles submerged lands issue
Wednesday, 22 October 2008 00:00 By Emmanuel T. Erediano - Variety News Staff
THE controversial marine monument proposal has reminded indigenous residents about the issue of the CNMI’s submerged lands which the federal court says belongs to the U.S. government.
Independent congressional delegate candidate Juan T. Lizama believes that the CNMI “can still seek redress from the U.S. Congress and regain some of our submerged lands.”
The retired judge said he also hopes that the marine monument supporters agree that the submerged lands issue must be settled in U.S. Congress first before any decision on the monument proposal is made.
He said the Pew Group’s monument campaign has “touched many unresolved questions concerning the CNMI’s rights over our submerged lands and exclusive economic zone.”
Lizama said the federal court has already decided that the CNMI lost ownership of its submerged lands when its Covenant with the U.S. was ratified by local voters and enacted into law by the federal government.
But, he added, the CNMI congressional delegate can urge Washington, D.C. to revisit the submerged lands issue.
Lizama noted the mistrust generated by “what seems to be an undue haste in pushing the marine monument before the people of the CNMI are comfortable with it.”
James L. Connaughton, chairman of White House Council on Environmental Quality, told lawmakers on Monday that the federal government is very aware of the CNMI submerged lands issue.
Lizama said if he is elected delegate, he would immediately request the U.S. president and Congress not to take action on the marine monument until the issues on the CNMI’s submerged lands and exclusive economic zones are resolved.
“I would then work with Congress to resolve the CNMI’s submerged lands issue and simultaneously negotiate the details of our economic zone,” he said. “After we have completed those issues, I would then work with Pew to help establish marine monument to preserve our islands’ beauty, native species and our culture for future generations. We must jointly be involved in the process.”
He noted that some delegate candidates are promising to “deliver the moon.”
“But we must be realistic,” he said. “It will take a few years of building strong relationships and fostering trust in Congress and the federal agencies to make our issues understood, appreciated, and translated into a larger economic zone.”
THE controversial marine monument proposal has reminded indigenous residents about the issue of the CNMI’s submerged lands which the federal court says belongs to the U.S. government.
Independent congressional delegate candidate Juan T. Lizama believes that the CNMI “can still seek redress from the U.S. Congress and regain some of our submerged lands.”
The retired judge said he also hopes that the marine monument supporters agree that the submerged lands issue must be settled in U.S. Congress first before any decision on the monument proposal is made.
He said the Pew Group’s monument campaign has “touched many unresolved questions concerning the CNMI’s rights over our submerged lands and exclusive economic zone.”
Lizama said the federal court has already decided that the CNMI lost ownership of its submerged lands when its Covenant with the U.S. was ratified by local voters and enacted into law by the federal government.
But, he added, the CNMI congressional delegate can urge Washington, D.C. to revisit the submerged lands issue.
Lizama noted the mistrust generated by “what seems to be an undue haste in pushing the marine monument before the people of the CNMI are comfortable with it.”
James L. Connaughton, chairman of White House Council on Environmental Quality, told lawmakers on Monday that the federal government is very aware of the CNMI submerged lands issue.
Lizama said if he is elected delegate, he would immediately request the U.S. president and Congress not to take action on the marine monument until the issues on the CNMI’s submerged lands and exclusive economic zones are resolved.
“I would then work with Congress to resolve the CNMI’s submerged lands issue and simultaneously negotiate the details of our economic zone,” he said. “After we have completed those issues, I would then work with Pew to help establish marine monument to preserve our islands’ beauty, native species and our culture for future generations. We must jointly be involved in the process.”
He noted that some delegate candidates are promising to “deliver the moon.”
“But we must be realistic,” he said. “It will take a few years of building strong relationships and fostering trust in Congress and the federal agencies to make our issues understood, appreciated, and translated into a larger economic zone.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)