.jpg)
[Note: Press Presentation By Howard P. Willens, Esq.]
January 26, 2008
SUMMARY OF COMMONWEALTH POSITION REGARDING
THE TRANSITION PROGRAM UNDER H.R. 3079
1. The provisions of H.R. 3079 relating to the transition program mandated by the legislation must be interpreted in light of their language, objective, and legislative history – including the earlier bills on the subject considered by the Senate in 1998-2000.
2. The consistent objective of these bills has been to establish a process for reducing the Commonwealth’s reliance on temporary nonimmigrant foreign workers and to require that the CNMI employ only U.S. citizens, freely associated state citizens, or workers admitted on an immigrant basis into the Commonwealth.
3. H.R. 3079 prohibits the CNMI from increasing the number of temporary nonimmigrant foreign workers in the Commonwealth (currently about 19,000) after the enactment of the legislation.
4. Nonimmigrant foreign workers lawfully working in the Commonwealth may remain to the conclusion of their contracts in place on the effective date of the transition program but no longer than two years after that date – which may be either one year or 18 months after the enactment of the legislation.
5. The transition period under the bill applies to all temporary nonimmigrant foreign workers in the CNMI unless otherwise entitled to be in the Commonwealth under one of the exceptions provided by the Immigration and Nationality Act for workers who enter under treaties with the United States, freely associated state citizens, or those covered by one of the many specialized provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (business visitors, exchange visitors, employees of international concerns, etc.) All foreign workers admitted in the Commonwealth’s 706K immigration category are temporary nonimmigrant workers who do not fall within any of the exceptions under the federal statute.
6. The permit system under the transition program therefore covers both the foreign workers currently in the CNMI and any person who may be issued an H visa during the transition period under the provisions of H.R. 3079.
7. H.R. 3079 permits an alien to apply for a H-1B or H-2B visa to enter the CNMI during the transition period without regard to the national caps on the numbers of such visas. Guam is given an exemption from these caps of indefinite duration. With respect to the Commonwealth, the exemption from the national caps does not authorize the admission of nonimmigrant foreign workers into the CNMI during the transition period outside of the permit system implemented by the federal officials under H.R. 3079.
8. H.R. 3079 eliminated the three alternative means for supplementing the local workforce of US and freely associated citizens contained in earlier versions of the bill – family sponsored immigrants, employment based immigrants, and a “grandfather” provision for long term foreign workers in the Commonwealth.
9. Under the permit system, each temporary nonimmigrant foreign worker employed in the CNMI must fill a position for which his or her employer has obtained a permit from the federal officials.
10. The federal officials are given broad discretion for developing and implementing the permit system under H.R. 3079. This will necessarily involve decisions affecting industries (and companies within industries) differently – with increasingly intense competition for the reduced number of foreign workers available each year under the transition program.
11. According to H.R. 3079, the permit system must operate to reduce the number of permits – and therefore the number of nonimmigrant foreign workers – in the CNMI to ZERO by the end of 2013. This very short time for reaching zero is four years earlier than the deadline provided in any earlier version of the legislation.
12. The bill does provide for one or more extensions – of up to five years – of the transition period. The Secretary of Labor is given the authority to grant such an extension after consultation with other federal officials and the Commonwealth. Such extensions are wholly within the discretion of the federal officials and no assumptions can be responsibly made as to when an extension might be requested or granted. Extensions would still require a reduction to zero but would probably allow smaller reductions each year during the extended transition period.
13. On the effective date of the transition period H.R. 3079 preempts all CNMI immigration laws and most, if not all, of the Commonwealth’s labor laws. This will remove all employer and Commonwealth Government benefits for foreign workers in the CNMI.
14. The fees to be charged by federal officials administering the transition program are certain to be substantially higher than those currently charged under CNMI laws. H.R. 3079, if enacted, would deny the Commonwealth its right under the Covenant to seek the return (or cover over) of the immigration fees from the federal government.
Howard P. Willens
Special Legal Counsel
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
PL 15-108 Is Progress. Progress Is Incremental
Below is Senator Frica Pangelinan's Opinion piece on PL 15-108 which was published by the Saipan Tribune. Click here.
Opinion
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Notes From the Hill
'PL 15-108 is progress. Progress is incremental.'
By Maria Frica T. Pangelinan
Special to the Saipan Tribune
These are the thoughts that evolved out of my research on Public Law 15-108 and ultimately motivated my support of its enactment. I felt it important to share with you as I believe that information is an essential component of constructive progress.
The dynamics of our labor market affect many, not just people in the Commonwealth. The families of citizens, permanent residents and foreign nationals who live on the U.S. mainland and in home countries are influenced as well.
The original labor laws were created on the premise that certain foreign nationals would fill jobs that could not be filled by our resident population. There were two reasons. First, we felt that our small population would not be able to provide a large enough labor pool to fully supply the needs of the industries we were trying to attract. Second, we needed time to prepare ourselves with education, training, and experience, for full participation in the workforce. After 30-plus years, we are more than ready. Even so, we have been slow to acknowledge and address the “brain drain” of citizens leaving our islands. Our investment in the secondary and postsecondary education of ourselves and our young people is being lost as they migrate out of the Commonwealth. Some of our college graduates never even return from the mainland, simply entering the workforce there. We are about a half a generation behind in coordinating the provisions of our labor laws with these realities.
The authors of the bill took on a huge task. Not only were the old laws and regulations complex, they were flawed and fragmented. The original purpose of the Nonresident Worker Act had been lost in a morass of piecemeal amendments. There were loopholes and weaknesses that allowed abuses, not just by employers, but by employees as well. It was a thankless job, not likely to please everyone, and fraught with political and social risk. Nonetheless, led by Rep. Cinta Kiapat, they took on the task of reforming the entire Act, something that no legislators before had been willing to tackle. For this, they have my respect. They did their jobs.
The new law and the accompanying regulations are still complex. Laws that deal with the movement and employment of people across international borders deal with complex issues. That being said, the new law is more streamlined and organized than the old.
PL 15-108 does not address every issue I would have liked. The exit provision makes no allowance for foreign nationals who have lived and worked in the Commonwealth for many years, some with children who are U.S. citizens. Some have no home or family to return to in their home countries during the newly required exit period. Although the regulations provide an alternative exit period of 60 days for some foreign nationals employed by qualifying employers, I do not yet see a clear solution for this issue and it needs to be addressed.
I would also like to revisit the new medical insurance provision. CHC struggles under the burden of being owed millions of dollars for services rendered. This is not a problem created solely by non-payment of medical services for foreign nationals. There are others in the Commonwealth who do not have medical insurance. I would like to explore the possibility of expanding the role of the newly created insurance pool. Perhaps by eliminating self-insurance we could build a larger insurance pool, insuring CHC gets paid more often, an additional benefit for the entire Commonwealth. I am continuing to study this issue.
There is also the issue of foreign nationals who enter the Commonwealth under tourist visas and intend to work. Some of them know they are breaking the law, some do not. The screening procedure used by our Immigration officers at the point of entry should take this into account. At this point I do not know if the current procedures effectively identify these persons, or how the situation is handled. I plan to explore this with the Director of Immigration.
Over the years there has been an accumulation of claims, and court cases pointing to loopholes and weaknesses of the old law. Most people, businesses, and government employees, are honest, hardworking, and law abiding. However, some employers and employees have taken advantage of loopholes, or chosen to break or circumvent the law. Next are the hard lessons we have learned while administering the local labor and immigration laws. People have been taken advantage of and lives have fallen through the cracks. There were as many as 20,000 foreign nationals employed in the Commonwealth in 2007 and the number of tourists was almost 400,000. Only a small number of human trafficking cases occurred during that period. The fact remains, however, that each case is a tragedy for the victim and their families. Every loophole we close is progress toward ending this horrendous practice.
The authors of PL15-108 took these issues and more, into account, integrating input from the Attorney General's Office, the Department of Labor, the business community, private citizens, and many others.
Below is an overview of labor and related issues in the Commonwealth.
Labor Problem
1. A government with too many employees
2. Government revenues are shrinking
3. Average wages are higher in the public sector
4. Relatively high unemployment among residents
5. Highly skilled and educated citizens living on the mainland
6. Residents have problems finding private sector jobs
7. Poor working and living conditions of some foreign nationals
8. Human trafficking
9. Lack of health benefits for foreign nationals who are not workers
10. Abandoned and unpaid foreign nationals
11. CHC has difficulty getting paid for services provided
Solutions
1. Reduce the number of public employees
2. Reduce expenses (payroll), raise revenues
3. Equalize wages in the private and public sector
4. Increase local employment in the private sector
5. Increase employment opportunities in the private sector
6. Improve the system of identifying and matching qualified residents with private sector employment opportunities
7. Improve the inspection and enforcement power of DOL
8. Close loopholes in the foreign national labor laws
9. Mandatory health benefits
10. Improved bonding/increased enforcement by DOL
11. Mandatory medical insurance; disqualifying employers who do not pay medical bills for their foreign workers
PL 15-108 creates rewards for employers that exceed statutory standards and increases the severity of penalties for those, including government employees, who do not uphold the law. The new law is said by some to increase the administrative burden on local businesses. Yes, it does. Hiring a new foreign national is now a special and final option for an employer, and only when it is a documented certainty that no citizen, permanent resident, or foreign national already in the Commonwealth is willing and able to fill the position. This is the same premise on which the Federal guest worker programs are based; to augment the resident workforce, not displace it.
Our entire labor market is shrinking. Payroll is usually the largest expense of a business. The private sector has always adjusted to the economy, increasing and decreasing the number of employees based on demand.
Now, whether by design or by necessity, public sector employment is decreasing also. Payroll is the largest expense of the government as well. Reducing the number of employees while controlling the wages of those who remain must be part of the government's path to solvency. Some who leave the government will retire, some will go off island for employment, and some will depend on social services and family for a means of support. However, many will be searching for private sector employment. We must now work even harder to connect our resident work force with the available jobs.
Part of the solution is to improve the process by which we identify and target career opportunities in the private sector for citizens and residents of the CNMI. The faulty stereotype of all private sector jobs offering only minimum wage is challenged by a study recently completed by the Office of the Public Auditor. During a twelve month period ending August 2006, over 800 nonresident permits were issued for positions that pay over $10 per hour. Many of these positions require the same skills and experience as public sector jobs. It has been reported that some of these positions are protected by a treaty provision and are not available to citizens and permanent residents. I will work with the OPA to verify these reports.
The report is available at: http://www.opacnmi.com/reports/053007%20Jobs%20Study%20Committee%20Final%20Report.pdf
High unemployment among our residents as well as losing them to mainland life is unreasonable in light of the findings of the OPA's job study. Actively recruiting qualified residents for positions should be a priority for private sector businesses.
Employers certainly recognize that by hiring citizens and permanent residents, they are keeping money circulating in the economy that would otherwise be lost to foreign countries in the form of remittances. Keeping these dollars in the Commonwealth takes advantage of the multiplier effect in our economy and this benefits everyone.
Change always causes angst and uncertainty. Some say that PL 15-108 is pointless, as it is soon to be overridden by federal immigration statutes. I respectfully disagree. We have identified problems with our labor laws. We legislators have a duty to correct them. "If “federalization” comes, in its current form, it will not become effective for a year after the bill is signed into law. At a minimum, we have a year during which we continue to be directly accountable for how we deal with identified problems. As our great American hero, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: "The time is always right to do the right thing”.
Does PL 15-108 solve all of our labor problems? No. There are larger economic factors, some global, that no law can fix. Our labor market is smaller than in the past and there will be fewer foreign nationals in the Commonwealth, but those that are will enjoy an improved quality of life because of PL 15-108.
PL 15-108 is progress. Progress is incremental. I will continue to monitor the implementation, and work to address the issues I have identified, as well as others that may arise.
(Maria Frica Pangelinan is a senator in the 16th Legislature.)
Opinion
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Notes From the Hill
'PL 15-108 is progress. Progress is incremental.'
By Maria Frica T. Pangelinan
Special to the Saipan Tribune
These are the thoughts that evolved out of my research on Public Law 15-108 and ultimately motivated my support of its enactment. I felt it important to share with you as I believe that information is an essential component of constructive progress.
The dynamics of our labor market affect many, not just people in the Commonwealth. The families of citizens, permanent residents and foreign nationals who live on the U.S. mainland and in home countries are influenced as well.
The original labor laws were created on the premise that certain foreign nationals would fill jobs that could not be filled by our resident population. There were two reasons. First, we felt that our small population would not be able to provide a large enough labor pool to fully supply the needs of the industries we were trying to attract. Second, we needed time to prepare ourselves with education, training, and experience, for full participation in the workforce. After 30-plus years, we are more than ready. Even so, we have been slow to acknowledge and address the “brain drain” of citizens leaving our islands. Our investment in the secondary and postsecondary education of ourselves and our young people is being lost as they migrate out of the Commonwealth. Some of our college graduates never even return from the mainland, simply entering the workforce there. We are about a half a generation behind in coordinating the provisions of our labor laws with these realities.
The authors of the bill took on a huge task. Not only were the old laws and regulations complex, they were flawed and fragmented. The original purpose of the Nonresident Worker Act had been lost in a morass of piecemeal amendments. There were loopholes and weaknesses that allowed abuses, not just by employers, but by employees as well. It was a thankless job, not likely to please everyone, and fraught with political and social risk. Nonetheless, led by Rep. Cinta Kiapat, they took on the task of reforming the entire Act, something that no legislators before had been willing to tackle. For this, they have my respect. They did their jobs.
The new law and the accompanying regulations are still complex. Laws that deal with the movement and employment of people across international borders deal with complex issues. That being said, the new law is more streamlined and organized than the old.
PL 15-108 does not address every issue I would have liked. The exit provision makes no allowance for foreign nationals who have lived and worked in the Commonwealth for many years, some with children who are U.S. citizens. Some have no home or family to return to in their home countries during the newly required exit period. Although the regulations provide an alternative exit period of 60 days for some foreign nationals employed by qualifying employers, I do not yet see a clear solution for this issue and it needs to be addressed.
I would also like to revisit the new medical insurance provision. CHC struggles under the burden of being owed millions of dollars for services rendered. This is not a problem created solely by non-payment of medical services for foreign nationals. There are others in the Commonwealth who do not have medical insurance. I would like to explore the possibility of expanding the role of the newly created insurance pool. Perhaps by eliminating self-insurance we could build a larger insurance pool, insuring CHC gets paid more often, an additional benefit for the entire Commonwealth. I am continuing to study this issue.
There is also the issue of foreign nationals who enter the Commonwealth under tourist visas and intend to work. Some of them know they are breaking the law, some do not. The screening procedure used by our Immigration officers at the point of entry should take this into account. At this point I do not know if the current procedures effectively identify these persons, or how the situation is handled. I plan to explore this with the Director of Immigration.
Over the years there has been an accumulation of claims, and court cases pointing to loopholes and weaknesses of the old law. Most people, businesses, and government employees, are honest, hardworking, and law abiding. However, some employers and employees have taken advantage of loopholes, or chosen to break or circumvent the law. Next are the hard lessons we have learned while administering the local labor and immigration laws. People have been taken advantage of and lives have fallen through the cracks. There were as many as 20,000 foreign nationals employed in the Commonwealth in 2007 and the number of tourists was almost 400,000. Only a small number of human trafficking cases occurred during that period. The fact remains, however, that each case is a tragedy for the victim and their families. Every loophole we close is progress toward ending this horrendous practice.
The authors of PL15-108 took these issues and more, into account, integrating input from the Attorney General's Office, the Department of Labor, the business community, private citizens, and many others.
Below is an overview of labor and related issues in the Commonwealth.
Labor Problem
1. A government with too many employees
2. Government revenues are shrinking
3. Average wages are higher in the public sector
4. Relatively high unemployment among residents
5. Highly skilled and educated citizens living on the mainland
6. Residents have problems finding private sector jobs
7. Poor working and living conditions of some foreign nationals
8. Human trafficking
9. Lack of health benefits for foreign nationals who are not workers
10. Abandoned and unpaid foreign nationals
11. CHC has difficulty getting paid for services provided
Solutions
1. Reduce the number of public employees
2. Reduce expenses (payroll), raise revenues
3. Equalize wages in the private and public sector
4. Increase local employment in the private sector
5. Increase employment opportunities in the private sector
6. Improve the system of identifying and matching qualified residents with private sector employment opportunities
7. Improve the inspection and enforcement power of DOL
8. Close loopholes in the foreign national labor laws
9. Mandatory health benefits
10. Improved bonding/increased enforcement by DOL
11. Mandatory medical insurance; disqualifying employers who do not pay medical bills for their foreign workers
PL 15-108 creates rewards for employers that exceed statutory standards and increases the severity of penalties for those, including government employees, who do not uphold the law. The new law is said by some to increase the administrative burden on local businesses. Yes, it does. Hiring a new foreign national is now a special and final option for an employer, and only when it is a documented certainty that no citizen, permanent resident, or foreign national already in the Commonwealth is willing and able to fill the position. This is the same premise on which the Federal guest worker programs are based; to augment the resident workforce, not displace it.
Our entire labor market is shrinking. Payroll is usually the largest expense of a business. The private sector has always adjusted to the economy, increasing and decreasing the number of employees based on demand.
Now, whether by design or by necessity, public sector employment is decreasing also. Payroll is the largest expense of the government as well. Reducing the number of employees while controlling the wages of those who remain must be part of the government's path to solvency. Some who leave the government will retire, some will go off island for employment, and some will depend on social services and family for a means of support. However, many will be searching for private sector employment. We must now work even harder to connect our resident work force with the available jobs.
Part of the solution is to improve the process by which we identify and target career opportunities in the private sector for citizens and residents of the CNMI. The faulty stereotype of all private sector jobs offering only minimum wage is challenged by a study recently completed by the Office of the Public Auditor. During a twelve month period ending August 2006, over 800 nonresident permits were issued for positions that pay over $10 per hour. Many of these positions require the same skills and experience as public sector jobs. It has been reported that some of these positions are protected by a treaty provision and are not available to citizens and permanent residents. I will work with the OPA to verify these reports.
The report is available at: http://www.opacnmi.com/reports/053007%20Jobs%20Study%20Committee%20Final%20Report.pdf
High unemployment among our residents as well as losing them to mainland life is unreasonable in light of the findings of the OPA's job study. Actively recruiting qualified residents for positions should be a priority for private sector businesses.
Employers certainly recognize that by hiring citizens and permanent residents, they are keeping money circulating in the economy that would otherwise be lost to foreign countries in the form of remittances. Keeping these dollars in the Commonwealth takes advantage of the multiplier effect in our economy and this benefits everyone.
Change always causes angst and uncertainty. Some say that PL 15-108 is pointless, as it is soon to be overridden by federal immigration statutes. I respectfully disagree. We have identified problems with our labor laws. We legislators have a duty to correct them. "If “federalization” comes, in its current form, it will not become effective for a year after the bill is signed into law. At a minimum, we have a year during which we continue to be directly accountable for how we deal with identified problems. As our great American hero, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: "The time is always right to do the right thing”.
Does PL 15-108 solve all of our labor problems? No. There are larger economic factors, some global, that no law can fix. Our labor market is smaller than in the past and there will be fewer foreign nationals in the Commonwealth, but those that are will enjoy an improved quality of life because of PL 15-108.
PL 15-108 is progress. Progress is incremental. I will continue to monitor the implementation, and work to address the issues I have identified, as well as others that may arise.
(Maria Frica Pangelinan is a senator in the 16th Legislature.)
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Tribune Publishes My Response To Hodges
Saturday January 19, 2008
Letters to the Editor
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Hodges' distortions are shameful
H.R. 3079, the federalization bill now pending in the U.S. Senate, does indeed deport every single foreign worker from the Commonwealth. That bill is awaiting action by a Senate that doesn't know much about the Commonwealth and, for that reason, may pass the bill. Let's make this clear: EVERY FOREIGN WORKER IN THE COMMONWEALTH WILL BE DEPORTED WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF PASSAGE OF THE FEDERALIZATION BILL. There are no exceptions. It is possible, as Pete A. says, that there will be an extension of another five years. But the Marianas will have no say in that. It is the intent of the federalization bill, and those like Mr. Hodges who support it, to deport every single foreign worker, bar none, from the Marianas.
The new Commonwealth labor law, P.L. 15-108, welcomes foreign workers, as the Commonwealth always has, and improves their working conditions and protections to a standard virtually unmatched anywhere else in the world. Tell me, where in the world do foreign workers get guaranteed medical coverage? Nowhere. And where in the world do foreign workers get bonded protection that their wages will be paid? Nowhere. One could go on and on. Mr. Hodges’ comparison to Hitler is despicable!
And let's look at the treatment of minors. Mr. Hodges is once again not only wrong, but so terribly wrong that one has to conclude his efforts are deliberate propaganda to slander the U.S. citizens who are of Chamorro and Carolinian heritage. What do you suppose Mr. Hodges is doing in the classroom? Maybe we need parent monitors in his classroom to be sure nothing like this unfounded hateful propaganda is going on there.
Here's the deal. Under H.R. 3079, the federalization law, when all foreign workers are deported, all U.S. citizen children will likely go with them unless they have U.S. citizen or permanent relative residents in the U.S. somewhere. Under U.S. law, when a foreign worker is forced to leave, he or she may petition the U.S. immigration officials for what they call “cancellation of removal” but the foreign worker will have to show “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to their U.S. citizen son or daughter. It is very difficult to meet this standard. (See, for example, the decision in In re Ariadna Gonzalez Recinas, et al., Respondent, file A75 696 573 (Los Angeles), decided Sept. 19, 2002, by the Board of Immigration Appeals.) If the foreign worker has any relatives or any resources in their home country, or any capacity to earn a living there, however small, the U.S. will not allow them to stay, no matter what hardship may occur to their U.S. citizen children from the move to the home country.
Under PL 15-108, the Commonwealth labor law, foreign workers will be required to leave the Commonwealth only for 60 days, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a qualifying employer and for six months, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a non-qualifying employer. If a foreign worker meets this periodic exit requirement (perhaps during the children's summer school vacation), the foreign worker can remain in the Commonwealth for as long as they are employed.
The new labor law is now in effect. I urge Mr. Hodges to take the time to read it, as he has obviously not done. The regulations under the new law will come into effect on Feb. 1, 2008. Similarly, I urge Mr. Hodges to read the regulations as they apply to the periodic exit. Anyone can see that the Commonwealth law is quite generous, especially compared to U.S. law. Nothing in PL 15-108 deprives any foreign worker of any aspect of belonging in the community. That is certainly more than one can say for “federalization” which has, from the beginning, divided the community, pitted foreign workers against U.S. citizens, and generally aroused negative feelings on both sides. Shame on Mr. Hodges and equal shame on federal officials who told foreign workers that “federalization” would benefit them.
Cinta M. Kaipat
Author of PL 15-108
Letters to the Editor
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Hodges' distortions are shameful
H.R. 3079, the federalization bill now pending in the U.S. Senate, does indeed deport every single foreign worker from the Commonwealth. That bill is awaiting action by a Senate that doesn't know much about the Commonwealth and, for that reason, may pass the bill. Let's make this clear: EVERY FOREIGN WORKER IN THE COMMONWEALTH WILL BE DEPORTED WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF PASSAGE OF THE FEDERALIZATION BILL. There are no exceptions. It is possible, as Pete A. says, that there will be an extension of another five years. But the Marianas will have no say in that. It is the intent of the federalization bill, and those like Mr. Hodges who support it, to deport every single foreign worker, bar none, from the Marianas.
The new Commonwealth labor law, P.L. 15-108, welcomes foreign workers, as the Commonwealth always has, and improves their working conditions and protections to a standard virtually unmatched anywhere else in the world. Tell me, where in the world do foreign workers get guaranteed medical coverage? Nowhere. And where in the world do foreign workers get bonded protection that their wages will be paid? Nowhere. One could go on and on. Mr. Hodges’ comparison to Hitler is despicable!
And let's look at the treatment of minors. Mr. Hodges is once again not only wrong, but so terribly wrong that one has to conclude his efforts are deliberate propaganda to slander the U.S. citizens who are of Chamorro and Carolinian heritage. What do you suppose Mr. Hodges is doing in the classroom? Maybe we need parent monitors in his classroom to be sure nothing like this unfounded hateful propaganda is going on there.
Here's the deal. Under H.R. 3079, the federalization law, when all foreign workers are deported, all U.S. citizen children will likely go with them unless they have U.S. citizen or permanent relative residents in the U.S. somewhere. Under U.S. law, when a foreign worker is forced to leave, he or she may petition the U.S. immigration officials for what they call “cancellation of removal” but the foreign worker will have to show “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to their U.S. citizen son or daughter. It is very difficult to meet this standard. (See, for example, the decision in In re Ariadna Gonzalez Recinas, et al., Respondent, file A75 696 573 (Los Angeles), decided Sept. 19, 2002, by the Board of Immigration Appeals.) If the foreign worker has any relatives or any resources in their home country, or any capacity to earn a living there, however small, the U.S. will not allow them to stay, no matter what hardship may occur to their U.S. citizen children from the move to the home country.
Under PL 15-108, the Commonwealth labor law, foreign workers will be required to leave the Commonwealth only for 60 days, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a qualifying employer and for six months, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a non-qualifying employer. If a foreign worker meets this periodic exit requirement (perhaps during the children's summer school vacation), the foreign worker can remain in the Commonwealth for as long as they are employed.
The new labor law is now in effect. I urge Mr. Hodges to take the time to read it, as he has obviously not done. The regulations under the new law will come into effect on Feb. 1, 2008. Similarly, I urge Mr. Hodges to read the regulations as they apply to the periodic exit. Anyone can see that the Commonwealth law is quite generous, especially compared to U.S. law. Nothing in PL 15-108 deprives any foreign worker of any aspect of belonging in the community. That is certainly more than one can say for “federalization” which has, from the beginning, divided the community, pitted foreign workers against U.S. citizens, and generally aroused negative feelings on both sides. Shame on Mr. Hodges and equal shame on federal officials who told foreign workers that “federalization” would benefit them.
Cinta M. Kaipat
Author of PL 15-108
Friday, January 18, 2008
Hodges' Shameful Distortions
The following letter to the editor from Ron Hodges appears in this Friday, January 18, 2008, edition of the Marianas Variety.
Letter to the editor: Chamberonomics XXX…my comments on P.L. 15-108
P.L. 15-108 is the Northern Marianas Islands equivalent of Adolph Hitler's "final solution." Hitler originally sought to enslave persons of color, predominately Jewish, to provide the Third Reich with a free factory and domestic labor force. When his conquests began to crumble, he ordered implementation of the "final solution," or elimination of undesirables, as though it was his master plan from the beginning.
Big business here wants to save money by not paying back wages or settling labor claims and deport guest workers to P.I. and China without due process. Our business leaders do not want federalization or P.L. 15-108, so we can only assume they want to keep the status quo of servitude. Our guest workers here have not been properly represented. Lawyers refuse to represent them, with few exceptions, due to financial conflicts of interest and the fact our guest workers are poor and unable to pay legal expenses. Our judges and politicians have not represented them properly because guest workers are disenfranchised and do not vote.
How could our community justify enforcing such a program of racism and shame? We must defend U.S. minor citizens from being deported to places where children have half the life expectancy of the U.S . mainland and regularly die from lack of basic medical care. One man has burned himself to death at the Labor Department to heighten awareness of this horrific situation, our community marched against this law in unprecedented numbers, and the two authors of this bill were defeated by primarily indigenous voters, so what else must the people do to stop this law?
"There are unjust laws just as there are unjust men" — MK Gandhi.
The U.S. should improve the status of guest workers here. Some guest workers would vacate the impoverished commonwealth, which would help to alleviate our labor glut and unemployment debacle. This action by the U.S. alone would force big business here to increase their numbers of local employees, which means more jobs for young indigenous residents here. The "chamber" cringes at the thought of bearing this retraining expense, but in my opinion, they can do business here or not. I think hotels here are slave driving organizations that pay third world wages while charging tourists top dollar prices. If that greedy group doesn't want to retrain a young local work force, then good riddance.
When my wife was 12 years old, her brother contracted measles. His conditioned worsened. Lacking adequate medical care, Avilino Villar Jr. died at the tender age of seven years old. Sadly, this was not a newsworthy event in the Philippines, but a daily fact of life. Sending one American citizen child to the third world is depraved indifference to the welfare of a minor. I am asking the U.S. Congress to act and prevent such a disgrace from happening.
RON HODGES
Puerto Rico, Saipan
**************
The following is my response to Hodges which I've sent in to both papers to print.
Letter to the Editor: Hodges' Distortions Are Shameful
H.R. 3079, the federalization bill now pending in the U.S. Senate, does indeed deport every single foreign worker from the Commonwealth. That bill is awaiting action by a Senate that doesn't know much about the Commonwealth and, for that reason, may pass the bill. Let's make this clear – EVERY FOREIGN WORKER IN THE COMMONWEALTH WILL BE DEPORTED WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF PASSAGE OF THE FEDERALIZATION BILL. There are no exceptions. It is possible, as Pete A says, that there will be an extension of another five years. But the Marianas will have no say in that. It is the intent of the federalization bill, and those like Mr. Hodges who support it, to deport every single foreign worker, bar none, from the Marianas.
The new Commonwealth labor law, P.L. 15-108, welcomes foreign workers, as the Commonwealth always has, and improves their working conditions and protections to a standard virtually unmatched anywhere else in the world. Tell me – where in the world do foreign workers get guaranteed medical coverage? Nowhere. And where in the world do foreign workers get bonded protection that their wages will be paid? Nowhere. One could go on and on. Mr. Hodges' comparison to Hitler is despicable!
And let's look at the treatment of minors. Mr. Hodges is once again not only wrong, but so terribly wrong that one has to conclude his efforts are deliberate propaganda to slander the U.S. citizens who are of Chamorro and Carolinian heritage. What do you suppose Mr. Hodges is doing in the classroom? Maybe we need parent monitors in his classroom to be sure nothing like this unfounded hateful propaganda is going on there.
Here's the deal. Under H.R. 3079, the federalization law, when all foreign workers are deported, all U.S. citizen children will likely go with them unless they have U.S. citizen or permanent relative residents in the U.S. somewhere. Under U.S. law, when a foreign worker is forced to leave, he or she may petition the U.S. immigration officials for what they call "cancellation of removal" but the foreign worker will have to show "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their U.S. citizen son or daughter. It is very difficult to meet this standard. (See, for example, the decision in In re Ariadna Gonzalez Recinas, et al., Respondent, file A75 696 573 (Los Angeles) decided Sept. 19, 2002, by the Board of Immigration Appeals.) If the foreign worker has any relatives or any resources in their home country, or any capacity to earn a living there however small, the U.S. will not allow them to stay, no matter what hardship may occur to their U.S. citizen children from the move to the home country.
Under PL 15-108, the Commonwealth labor law, foreign workers will be required to leave the Commonwealth only for 60 days, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a qualifying employer and for six months, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a non-qualifying employer. If a foreign worker meets this periodic exit requirement (perhaps during the children's summer school vacation), the foreign worker can remain in the Commonwealth for as long as they are employed.
The new labor law is now in effect. I urge Mr. Hodges to take the time to read it, as he has obviously not done. The regulations under the new law will come into effect on February 1, 2008. Similarly, I urge Mr. Hodges to read the regulations as they apply to the periodic exit. Anyone can see that the Commonwealth law is quite generous, especially compared to U.S. law. Nothing in PL 15-108 deprives any foreign worker of any aspect of belonging in the community. That is certainly more than one can say for "federalization" which has, from the beginning, divided the community, pitted foreign workers against U.S. citizens, and generally aroused negative feelings on both sides. Shame on Mr. Hodges and equal shame on federal officials who told foreign workers that "federalization" would benefit them.
Cinta M. Kaipat
Author of PL 15-108
Letter to the editor: Chamberonomics XXX…my comments on P.L. 15-108
P.L. 15-108 is the Northern Marianas Islands equivalent of Adolph Hitler's "final solution." Hitler originally sought to enslave persons of color, predominately Jewish, to provide the Third Reich with a free factory and domestic labor force. When his conquests began to crumble, he ordered implementation of the "final solution," or elimination of undesirables, as though it was his master plan from the beginning.
Big business here wants to save money by not paying back wages or settling labor claims and deport guest workers to P.I. and China without due process. Our business leaders do not want federalization or P.L. 15-108, so we can only assume they want to keep the status quo of servitude. Our guest workers here have not been properly represented. Lawyers refuse to represent them, with few exceptions, due to financial conflicts of interest and the fact our guest workers are poor and unable to pay legal expenses. Our judges and politicians have not represented them properly because guest workers are disenfranchised and do not vote.
How could our community justify enforcing such a program of racism and shame? We must defend U.S. minor citizens from being deported to places where children have half the life expectancy of the U.S . mainland and regularly die from lack of basic medical care. One man has burned himself to death at the Labor Department to heighten awareness of this horrific situation, our community marched against this law in unprecedented numbers, and the two authors of this bill were defeated by primarily indigenous voters, so what else must the people do to stop this law?
"There are unjust laws just as there are unjust men" — MK Gandhi.
The U.S. should improve the status of guest workers here. Some guest workers would vacate the impoverished commonwealth, which would help to alleviate our labor glut and unemployment debacle. This action by the U.S. alone would force big business here to increase their numbers of local employees, which means more jobs for young indigenous residents here. The "chamber" cringes at the thought of bearing this retraining expense, but in my opinion, they can do business here or not. I think hotels here are slave driving organizations that pay third world wages while charging tourists top dollar prices. If that greedy group doesn't want to retrain a young local work force, then good riddance.
When my wife was 12 years old, her brother contracted measles. His conditioned worsened. Lacking adequate medical care, Avilino Villar Jr. died at the tender age of seven years old. Sadly, this was not a newsworthy event in the Philippines, but a daily fact of life. Sending one American citizen child to the third world is depraved indifference to the welfare of a minor. I am asking the U.S. Congress to act and prevent such a disgrace from happening.
RON HODGES
Puerto Rico, Saipan
**************
The following is my response to Hodges which I've sent in to both papers to print.
Letter to the Editor: Hodges' Distortions Are Shameful
H.R. 3079, the federalization bill now pending in the U.S. Senate, does indeed deport every single foreign worker from the Commonwealth. That bill is awaiting action by a Senate that doesn't know much about the Commonwealth and, for that reason, may pass the bill. Let's make this clear – EVERY FOREIGN WORKER IN THE COMMONWEALTH WILL BE DEPORTED WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF PASSAGE OF THE FEDERALIZATION BILL. There are no exceptions. It is possible, as Pete A says, that there will be an extension of another five years. But the Marianas will have no say in that. It is the intent of the federalization bill, and those like Mr. Hodges who support it, to deport every single foreign worker, bar none, from the Marianas.
The new Commonwealth labor law, P.L. 15-108, welcomes foreign workers, as the Commonwealth always has, and improves their working conditions and protections to a standard virtually unmatched anywhere else in the world. Tell me – where in the world do foreign workers get guaranteed medical coverage? Nowhere. And where in the world do foreign workers get bonded protection that their wages will be paid? Nowhere. One could go on and on. Mr. Hodges' comparison to Hitler is despicable!
And let's look at the treatment of minors. Mr. Hodges is once again not only wrong, but so terribly wrong that one has to conclude his efforts are deliberate propaganda to slander the U.S. citizens who are of Chamorro and Carolinian heritage. What do you suppose Mr. Hodges is doing in the classroom? Maybe we need parent monitors in his classroom to be sure nothing like this unfounded hateful propaganda is going on there.
Here's the deal. Under H.R. 3079, the federalization law, when all foreign workers are deported, all U.S. citizen children will likely go with them unless they have U.S. citizen or permanent relative residents in the U.S. somewhere. Under U.S. law, when a foreign worker is forced to leave, he or she may petition the U.S. immigration officials for what they call "cancellation of removal" but the foreign worker will have to show "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their U.S. citizen son or daughter. It is very difficult to meet this standard. (See, for example, the decision in In re Ariadna Gonzalez Recinas, et al., Respondent, file A75 696 573 (Los Angeles) decided Sept. 19, 2002, by the Board of Immigration Appeals.) If the foreign worker has any relatives or any resources in their home country, or any capacity to earn a living there however small, the U.S. will not allow them to stay, no matter what hardship may occur to their U.S. citizen children from the move to the home country.
Under PL 15-108, the Commonwealth labor law, foreign workers will be required to leave the Commonwealth only for 60 days, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a qualifying employer and for six months, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a non-qualifying employer. If a foreign worker meets this periodic exit requirement (perhaps during the children's summer school vacation), the foreign worker can remain in the Commonwealth for as long as they are employed.
The new labor law is now in effect. I urge Mr. Hodges to take the time to read it, as he has obviously not done. The regulations under the new law will come into effect on February 1, 2008. Similarly, I urge Mr. Hodges to read the regulations as they apply to the periodic exit. Anyone can see that the Commonwealth law is quite generous, especially compared to U.S. law. Nothing in PL 15-108 deprives any foreign worker of any aspect of belonging in the community. That is certainly more than one can say for "federalization" which has, from the beginning, divided the community, pitted foreign workers against U.S. citizens, and generally aroused negative feelings on both sides. Shame on Mr. Hodges and equal shame on federal officials who told foreign workers that "federalization" would benefit them.
Cinta M. Kaipat
Author of PL 15-108
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
