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.”

Second International Decade of Decolonization (to) End Unnoticed

Second International Decade of Decolonization (to) End Unnoticed

01 December 2009

América Latina en Movimiento
by Joyce van Genderen-Naar
30th November 2009

The Second International Decade of Decolonization is ending soon in 2010. The main conclusion is that two decades were not enough to resolve all decolonization issues, in contrary the process of self-determination leading to decolonization has become increasingly complex. Third and even more International Decades will be needed before all Non-Self-Governing Territories have attained self-determination.

The international mandate for decolonisation is a function of the UN Charter and UN resolutions on decolonisation are supported by all of the nations of the world, with regard to the international obligation to develop self-government and to take due account of the political aspirations of the people of their territories (article 73 of the United Nations Charter). But the implementation is politically sensitive and information has been scarce. Decolonization issues stay unnoticed.

The stocktaking took place during the Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonization, organized on 12, 13 and 14 May in St. Kitts and Nevis (Caribbean) by the UN Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization (Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples). Recommendations were made to establish a mechanism for dialogue between local authorities in the Territories, administering Powers and the international community to facilitate the decolonization process.

There has to be more interaction and cooperation between the Special Committee and the administering Powers, by creating frameworks for dialogue between the Territories, the administering Powers and the Special Committee. The international community needs to work together and to remain engaged, guided by the political options available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories: free association with other independent States, full integration with political rights, or independence. It is important to focus more on the specific needs of each Territory in terms of their political and economic needs and assistance by the United Nations system.

Education and public outreach are crucial for decolonization, to enable the people concerned to make informed decisions regarding their future political status, to promote maturity and movement towards “appropriation of the own destiny”: “You cannot insist on your rights, unless you understand them.” Decisions on self-determination must be based on full information and education. In a message to the Seminar UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had urged the administering Powers, Non-Self-Governing Territories and the United Nations to continue working together to accelerate the process of eradicating colonialism.

He said that progress in this area will require close cooperation between all three actors. He noted that the right to self-determination must be taken into proper account in exploring how to accelerate the decolonization process for the remaining 16 UN listed non self-governing territories, namely the ten Overseas Countries and Territories of the UK (Anquilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean Sea; Falklands Islands (Malvinas) and St. Helena in the Atlantic Ocean; Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific; Gibraltar in Europe); New Caledonia, Overseas Country and Territory of France in the Pacific; three territories of the USA: Virgin Island in the Caribbean, American Samoa and Guam in the Pacific; Tokelau, a self-governing dependency of New Zealand in the Pacific; Western Sahara, occupied by Morocco, in Africa.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was counting on the administering Powers in particular to discharge their obligations in a manner that promotes the well-being of the inhabitants of the territories within their responsibility. The interests of the peoples of the Territories have to be at the heart of all efforts.

The UN system will continue to assist the Non-Self-Governing Territories, in areas such as economic and social development, environmental sustainability, healthcare and good governance. Emerging challenges for the Non-Self-Governing Territories on their path towards decolonisation are the impact of climate change, the global economic and financial crisis, the role of regional cooperation, education and public awareness, the role of women, the empowerment of vulnerable people and the capacity for full self-government towards self-determination. Key elements in responding to the challenges of today are political maturity, economic sustainability, enhanced administrative capacity and strengthened regional cooperation.

Regional cooperation and regional arrangements offered important opportunities for many Non-Self-Governing Territories and contributed to the development of a strong regional identity and strengthened concrete functional cooperation in various areas of mutual interest. Important were the role of the United Nations regional commissions, such as the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and bodies like the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), as well as various United Nations specialized agencies.

In response to climate change, which had exposed the vulnerability of many Non-Self-Governing Territories, regional cooperation could play a crucial role in the field of disaster preparedness. The global economic crisis had further highlighted the importance of economic sustainability and diversification of the economic base in the Non-Self-Governing Territories through community-based development, the development of small and medium enterprises, promotion of micro-financing and employment-generating activities, and the empowerment of vulnerable groups.

In his closing statement on behalf of the host country, Delano Frank Bart, Permanent Representative of Saint Kitts and Nevis to the United Nations, characterized the seminar as “the penultimate event” in the course of the Decade. He said that with regard to the energy, food and financial crises, the Territories had been hit as hard as most countries, if not more, but that their concerns were often marginalized. “Our role is to ensure that all needs are met, especially the needs of those of us who are not governing themselves.” Highlighting the impact of climate change, he said that, of the 16 Territories under the Special Committee’s mandate, the majority were islands. Therefore, the concerns of small island developing States within the United Nations system were also the concerns of those Territories. They were among the most vulnerable and needed to be aware of the commitment of the international community to stand by them and “weather the storm together.”

Recalling that his country had recently celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary of independence, he said Saint Kitts and Nevis remembered the concerns of the pre-independence period. One needed the goodwill of all parties to resolve such issues, and the participants should, therefore, take away with them a determination to ensure that the day would come in the not-too-distant future, when the Special Committee’s work would bear fruit, and that the solutions found would be in the best interests of all concerned.

The recommendations of the St. Kitts Seminar have become the most recent chapter of the ever growing legislative authority on the self-determination of the territories. Some of the recommendations were included in the decolonisation resolutions adopted by the UN Fourth Committee in November 2009, and are expected to be approved by the General Assembly in December 2009. Implementation is an entirely separate matter, according to International Advisor on Democratic Governance Dr. Carlyle Corbin

GUAM’s self-determination bill

How important information and education are to the people of the Non-self Governing Territories and how essential to the expression of their political aspirations and self-determination, was shown on November 5, 2009, when the delegate of Guam Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, in the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife Legislative hearing on H.R. 3940, introduced a self-determination bill to support a public education program for the people of Guam regarding various political status options to express their desired political status.

Guam is a territory of the USA in the Pacific, that has been under the United States Flag as an unincorporated territory for over 111 years. Guam, like her sister territory Puerto Rico, was ceded to the United States from Spain upon the signing of the Treaty of Paris settling the Spanish-American War in 1898. Guam is listed by the United Nations as a non-self-governing territory. Despites all efforts towards defining a new political relationship between Guam and the United States, the political aspirations of the people of Guam for such status were never realized. A referendum affording the people of Guam an opportunity to express their views on status was authorized by local law but remains unscheduled. In November the US Congressional Committee approved the self-determination bill and assistance to the territories.

Dr. Corbin explained that there are two separate pieces of legislation - one bill for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands, and a second different bill for Puerto Rico, which is essentially a referendum bill which had been adopted by the same Committee earlier this year. The Puerto Rico measure does not address public education since they already have a very sophisticated process in place via their political parties. Both bills have been adopted by the substantive committee in one House of the US Congress so far. It still has to be adopted by the full House of Representatives, then by the US Senate and signed by the President. He anticipated that this would happen without too much difficulty since there is no new financial resources associated with either measure.

Dr. Corbin also made clear that the issue is not only between independence or not, but rather to chose one of the three political status option which provides for a full measure of self-government, namely independence, free association and integration. These are so recognised by the UN. Some member states which administer territories, such as the UK, have told its territories that offers neither integration nor free association to them, and the choice is either independence or remaining in a dependency status. This is unlike the Dutch Antilles which had achieved sufficient autonomy to be regarded as fully self-governing. This might change as the dismantling of the five islands will now yield a new less autonomous model for the two islands which have chosen in referendum to become separate countries within the Dutch Kingdom.

'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.

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.

'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.

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.

NMI resident disputes local group’s federalization claim

Friday, 13 March 2009 00:00 By Gemma Q. Casas - Variety News Staff


A local resident who wants to participate in the ongoing CNMI lawsuit against the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and Labor in a federal court in Washington, D.C. is challenging the legitimacy of the CNMI Descent for Self-Government and Indigenous Rights’ claim that it represents 4,100 persons of NMI-descent.

Human rights lawyer Bruce Jorgensen told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Paul L. Friedman that his client, Celina Tilipao Mettao Setefano, an NMI-descent person is questioning the validity of the CNMI Descent group’s contention.

Setefano asked Friedman to allow her to file a brief as an amicus curiae, Latin for “friend of the court,” a privilege granted to the CNMI Descent group.

Jorgensen said there are also indigenous people who believe that the federalization law would be good for the CNMI.

He said Setefano is among those indigenous people who welcome the changes to the islands’ immigration system.

“Ms. Setefano and similarly situated others maintain that a substantial if not overwhelming number of CNMI situated persons of NMI descent and of non-NMI descent, including both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, resoundingly support, laud, and are collectively relieved by, the recently enacted federal statutory provisions by which the U.S. government has finally come to the aid of the CNMI general populace — including the CNMI’s disenfranchised masses…,” he said.

“Local immigration laws, policies, and procedures have been “ineptly and woefully controlled over the past two decades by a malfeasant CNMI bureaucracy,” he added.

Jorgensen asked permission to attend today’s scheduled hearing regarding the CNMI’s motion to declare that certain provisions of the federalization law are illegal and the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Lawyers from the Washington-based law firm Jenner & Block will orally argue for the CNMI’s motion for preliminary injunction.

A team of Justice Department of lawyers will represent Homeland Security and the U.S. Labor in the hearing.

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.