.jpg)
Tuesday February 5, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The plain meaning of H.R. 3079
By Howard Willens
For Variety
FOR more than a decade commonwealth residents have debated the pros and cons of federalization of the CNMI immigration and labor laws. Today this debate is focused on the provisions of H.R. 3079, currently before the U.S. Senate for final approval. Although the debate on the merits of the bill undoubtedly will continue, it is desirable to strive for a common understanding of what the bill means.
The issue
Recent media reports originating from an unnamed source at the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, plus numerous letters in support of H.R. 3079, have proposed an interpretation of the legislation’s transition program which I find to be clearly wrong. The question at issue may be simply stated: Does the transition period under H.R 3079 involve one or two special programs for guest workers in the CNMI?
In support of the two guest worker programs theory
The anonymous committee staffer (quoted in the Marianas Variety of January 30, 2008) and the letter writers contend that there are two separate guest worker programs provided by H.R. 3079 under which employers may hire nonimmigrant foreign workers during the transition period.
First, they state that “current guest workers would be eligible for the new CNMI-only temporary guest worker program.” They go on to say that this will give these workers “the chance to remain in the CNMI as long as that program is operating and it will certainly last at least six years beyond the date” of the bill’s enactment and “probably longer, given the CNMI’s very large dependence on guest workers.” (This description is misleading. It fails to acknowledge that during this transition period federal officials are required to reduce annually the number of workers covered by the permit system in order to achieve eventually the goal of zero. It offers small comfort to the 19,000 guest workers in the CNMI to know that a few of them will have the “chance” to be the last to be repatriated.)
Second, they state that “guest workers would be eligible for the non-immigrant worker program under existing federal law on H visas, and allows the CNMI to participate in it without numerical caps.” Conceding that the goal of the legislation is to eventually reduce the number of the guest workers under the CNMI-only temporary guest worker to zero, the proponents of the two-programs interpretation state that “guest workers would continue [to] be able to enter the CNMI indefinitely under the existing federal non-immigrant worker program or [sic] H visas.”
In support of only a single guest worker program
I find that there is a single transition program defined by H.R. 3079, which imposes a permit system on all employers seeking to use nonimmigrant foreign workers, whether that worker is presently in the CNMI or comes in on an H visa. Furthermore, the law requires reductions in the number of permits on an annual basis to zero by the end of 2013, subject to the granting of an extension. After the transition period ends, nonimmigrant workers could enter the CNMI only with an H visa and the commonwealth would be subject to the national caps (unlike Guam). Because it would have to compete with all other U.S. jurisdictions for H visas under the national caps (after the transition program ends), the commonwealth would get few, if any, of these visas.
I find that the two-program theory is unsupportable for these reasons.
First, there is nothing in either the language of H.R. 3079 or its legislative history that refers to two separate guest worker programs during the transition period. All preceding versions of this bill have defined only a single such program to help bridge the gap between the CNMI’s current situation and the full application of the federal immigration laws. This is true of the original versions of H.R. 3079 and S. 1634 as introduced in Congress in 2007, as well as S.1052 passed by the Senate in 2000 and S. 507, approved by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in 2001. Each of these bills defined a single special transition program lasting 10 years (or possibly longer) during which the number of nonimmigrant guest workers in the commonwealth would be reduced to zero.
Second, the proponents of two programs infer the existence of the second guest worker program from the exemption from the numerical caps for H visas that H.R. 3079 provides to the CNMI during the transition program. Such an inference is not supportable and the subsection authorizing the exemption does not permit federal officials implementing H.R. 3079 to admit nonimmigrant workers under an H visa who are not covered by the permit system established by the CNMI-only transition program.
1) The language of the exemption provision, subsection 6(b) of H.R. 3079, imposes no duties whatsoever on federal officials implementing the legislation. It provides only that “An alien, if otherwise qualified, may seek admission to Guam or to the commonwealth during the transition program as a nonimmigrant worker” under the H visa programs “without counting against the numerical limitations” contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
2) The exemption from the national caps was necessary to permit the federal officials to issue one or more H visas to meet particular employment requests in the commonwealth without the need to take such visas away from other jurisdictions in the United States. Such exemptions were contained in all previous bills addressing the CNMI situation, with no reference whatsoever in any of these bills to a “second” guest worker program.
3) In earlier versions of the law, the subsection dealing with the exemption from the caps on H visas was contained within the description of the CNMI-only guest worker program. It was almost certainly moved out from this description once it was decided to extend the exemption to Guam as well as the CNMI. It would have been inappropriate, and perhaps misleading, to have this provision relating to Guam contained in the subsection dealing with the CNMI-only guest worker program.
4) The subsections dealing with the CNMI-only guest worker program (with its permit system and objective of annual reductions) indicate that their provisions apply to workers entering the CNMI on H visas, as well as those workers currently in the CNMI who would be entitled to a nonimmigrant classification.
— Subsection 6(d) begins with this statement: “An alien who is seeking to enter the commonwealth as a nonimmigrant worker may be admitted to perform work during the transition period subject to the following requirements [of the permit system]”
— Subsection 6(d)(2) states: “No alien shall be granted nonimmigrant classification or a visa under this subsection unless the permit requirements established under this paragraph have been met.”
— Subsection 6(d)(3) provides that the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State shall establish the conditions for admitting such nonimmigrant workers during the transition period and states: “An alien admitted to the commonwealth on the basis of such a visa shall be permitted to engage in employment only as authorized pursuant to the transition program.”
Third, if the drafters of H.R. 3079 as approved by the House of Representatives had intended to exempt the workers coming in under the H visa program from the CNMI-only transition program, they knew how to do so. In the version of H.R. 3079 that was the subject of hearings in August 2007, there was a provision for the use of employment-based immigrant visas, if necessary, to supplement the available CNMI workforce. Before such visas could be used, the Secretary of Labor under Subsection 6(c)(3) of the bill had to conclude “that exceptional circumstances exist with respect to the inability of employers in the commonwealth to obtain sufficient work-authorized labor, in addition to the commonwealth-only transitional workers authorized under section 103(d)….” (emphasis supplied) As the United States Supreme Court has observed, “where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another…, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993) (quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S.16, 23 (1983)).
Fourth, the contention that the bill provides for two, very different, guest worker programs during the transition period simply makes no sense. In the first place, why would any guest worker choose to participate in the so-called temporary program, with the chance of having the available permits being reduced to zero, if such an easy and non-threatening alternative were available under this hypothetical H visa program. Secondly, the argument assumes that the very same federal officials required to apply the harsh provisions of the CNMI-only guest worker program would conclude that Congress intended them to admit all H visa applicants seeking to work in the CNMI without regard to the permit system imposed by the CNMI-only program. This proposition cannot withstand rational analysis.
The fact is, H.R. 3079 mandates the reduction of guest workers in the commonwealth to zero within five years, or perhaps longer if an extension is granted. There are no exceptions, and there is no alternative for guest workers or CNMI employers, who will have to compete for the permits remaining after the required annual reductions. Those who drafted the bill intended this result. There is absolutely no legislative history indicating anything to the contrary. The congressional drafters of this bill (and the Senate bill) and their collaborators at the Department of the Interior declined to provide to the commonwealth any draft of the proposed bill that they ultimately sent to the House of Representatives for passage. If we had been given this opportunity, we could easily have pointed out these and other deficiencies in the proposed legislation and the inevitable and serious adverse effects on the commonwealth and its guest workers that will result from its enactment.
Showing posts with label federalization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federalization. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Meeting With Filipino Community
[This reporter reported this story accurately. Thank you, Haidee.]
Home > Pinoy Abroad > Top Stories
CNMI officials to Filipinos: Give new labor law a chance
By HAIDEE V. EUGENIO, GMANews.TV
01/30/2008 | 02:09 PM
Email this | Email the Editor | Print | Digg this | Add to del.icio.us
SUSUPE, Saipan – Key officials of the US Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) government told about a hundred representatives of various Filipino groups on Saipan to give the new labor reform law a chance.
In a three-hour open forum on Tuesday night exclusively covered by GMANews.TV, the CNMI officials said Public Law 15-108 or the Commonwealth Employment Act of 2007 still allows foreign workers to transfer jobs through administrative orders and not necessarily through the filing of a labor complaint against their current employers.
The officials said the new law allows foreign workers to have part-time jobs of up to 32 hours a month, and provides more protection to guest workers than the current system.
The labor reform law takes effect on Feb. 1.
Thousands of Filipinos and other foreign workers joined a unity march in December 2007 to protest the new law, citing its anti-worker and anti-business provisions that restrict consensual and contract expiration transfers and require guest workers to periodically exit the CNMI from 60 days to six months.
But on Tuesday night, the CNMI officials led by Governor Benigno R. Fitial's special legal adviser Howard Willens and his wife and volunteer attorney Deanna C. Siemer, along with Labor Director Barry Hirshbein and former Rep. Cinta M. Kaipat who introduced the bill in the previous legislature that became Public Law 15-108, said workers may have only been misinformed about the advantages of the new law.
"Even the United States has a touchback provision which requires foreign workers to exit (for one year)," said Siemer, adding that the new CNMI labor law only requires a periodic exit of 60 days to six months.
The CNMI Department of Labor also grants exemptions from the periodic exit requirement.
"Public Law 15-108 is better than any law you can find in the world, including the United States…This is the best system there is," Siemer told the Filipino workers, adding that guest workers should "give the new law a chance."
Workers interviewed by GMANews.TV said what they heard during the open forum was the direct opposite of what they knew about the law.
Opponents and critics of the new labor law say the measure will further disenfranchise guest workers in the CNMI now numbering only 19,856 from 20,883 on Sept. 30, 2007 and from 35,000 just a few years back due to a declining economy.
"Tingnan natin kung sino ang nagsasabi ng totoo pagdating ng Feb. 1," one worker said after the open forum.
The CNMI officials also said that contrary to many guest workers' belief, the immigration federalization bill now pending in the U.S. Senate will phase out the guest worker program.
The federalization bill's provision granting non-immigrant status to thousands of eligible long-term foreign workers in the CNMI was removed before it cleared the U.S. House of Representatives, to the disappointment of over 8,000 long-staying Filipino workers in the CNMI and thousands more of foreign workers.
A non-immigrant status allows eligible foreign workers to freely travel, work and study in the United States and its territories.
Jerry Custodio, president of the Human Dignity Movement, said the open forum did not convince him that the new law is as good as the officials want Filipino workers to believe.
Last year, Gov. Benigno R. Fitial himself was quoted by local media as saying that the exit requirement under the new labor law is to prevent foreign workers from gaining permanent residency status should a bill offering such status is introduced in the US.
Congress.
On Jan. 31, representatives of the Filipino community will meet with US Federal Labor Ombudsman Jim Benedetto in another open forum. Benedetto is one of the most vocal critics of the new labor law, saying it diminishes the right of foreign workers.
The workers said they are also eager to personally hear the concerns of the critics of the bill.
Towards the end of open forum at around 9 p.m. on Tuesday, another worker addressed a question to Philippine Consul General to the CNMI Wilfredo DL. Maximo. She asked permission to speak in Filipino to which the consul general agreed.
The worker asked why the Philippine Consulate General has never issued a statement to defend Filipino workers in the CNMI who were called "animals" and other derogatory terms by certain members of the local community.
Maximo said the Philippine government "does not intend to add more fuel to the fire," as he cited an anonymous called who called Filipinos "animals."
"Hindi tayo magpapadala sa ganyang mga incendiary comments… Kapag sumagot kami, parang sinabuyan naming ng gasolina (ang apoy). Hindi naming hahayaan na magkaroon ng racial tension dito," Maximo said.
He called on his fellow Filipinos to maintain friendly relations with all the members of the CNMI community. - Haidee V. Eugenio, GMANews.TV
Home > Pinoy Abroad > Top Stories
CNMI officials to Filipinos: Give new labor law a chance
By HAIDEE V. EUGENIO, GMANews.TV
01/30/2008 | 02:09 PM
Email this | Email the Editor | Print | Digg this | Add to del.icio.us
SUSUPE, Saipan – Key officials of the US Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) government told about a hundred representatives of various Filipino groups on Saipan to give the new labor reform law a chance.
In a three-hour open forum on Tuesday night exclusively covered by GMANews.TV, the CNMI officials said Public Law 15-108 or the Commonwealth Employment Act of 2007 still allows foreign workers to transfer jobs through administrative orders and not necessarily through the filing of a labor complaint against their current employers.
The officials said the new law allows foreign workers to have part-time jobs of up to 32 hours a month, and provides more protection to guest workers than the current system.
The labor reform law takes effect on Feb. 1.
Thousands of Filipinos and other foreign workers joined a unity march in December 2007 to protest the new law, citing its anti-worker and anti-business provisions that restrict consensual and contract expiration transfers and require guest workers to periodically exit the CNMI from 60 days to six months.
But on Tuesday night, the CNMI officials led by Governor Benigno R. Fitial's special legal adviser Howard Willens and his wife and volunteer attorney Deanna C. Siemer, along with Labor Director Barry Hirshbein and former Rep. Cinta M. Kaipat who introduced the bill in the previous legislature that became Public Law 15-108, said workers may have only been misinformed about the advantages of the new law.
"Even the United States has a touchback provision which requires foreign workers to exit (for one year)," said Siemer, adding that the new CNMI labor law only requires a periodic exit of 60 days to six months.
The CNMI Department of Labor also grants exemptions from the periodic exit requirement.
"Public Law 15-108 is better than any law you can find in the world, including the United States…This is the best system there is," Siemer told the Filipino workers, adding that guest workers should "give the new law a chance."
Workers interviewed by GMANews.TV said what they heard during the open forum was the direct opposite of what they knew about the law.
Opponents and critics of the new labor law say the measure will further disenfranchise guest workers in the CNMI now numbering only 19,856 from 20,883 on Sept. 30, 2007 and from 35,000 just a few years back due to a declining economy.
"Tingnan natin kung sino ang nagsasabi ng totoo pagdating ng Feb. 1," one worker said after the open forum.
The CNMI officials also said that contrary to many guest workers' belief, the immigration federalization bill now pending in the U.S. Senate will phase out the guest worker program.
The federalization bill's provision granting non-immigrant status to thousands of eligible long-term foreign workers in the CNMI was removed before it cleared the U.S. House of Representatives, to the disappointment of over 8,000 long-staying Filipino workers in the CNMI and thousands more of foreign workers.
A non-immigrant status allows eligible foreign workers to freely travel, work and study in the United States and its territories.
Jerry Custodio, president of the Human Dignity Movement, said the open forum did not convince him that the new law is as good as the officials want Filipino workers to believe.
Last year, Gov. Benigno R. Fitial himself was quoted by local media as saying that the exit requirement under the new labor law is to prevent foreign workers from gaining permanent residency status should a bill offering such status is introduced in the US.
Congress.
On Jan. 31, representatives of the Filipino community will meet with US Federal Labor Ombudsman Jim Benedetto in another open forum. Benedetto is one of the most vocal critics of the new labor law, saying it diminishes the right of foreign workers.
The workers said they are also eager to personally hear the concerns of the critics of the bill.
Towards the end of open forum at around 9 p.m. on Tuesday, another worker addressed a question to Philippine Consul General to the CNMI Wilfredo DL. Maximo. She asked permission to speak in Filipino to which the consul general agreed.
The worker asked why the Philippine Consulate General has never issued a statement to defend Filipino workers in the CNMI who were called "animals" and other derogatory terms by certain members of the local community.
Maximo said the Philippine government "does not intend to add more fuel to the fire," as he cited an anonymous called who called Filipinos "animals."
"Hindi tayo magpapadala sa ganyang mga incendiary comments… Kapag sumagot kami, parang sinabuyan naming ng gasolina (ang apoy). Hindi naming hahayaan na magkaroon ng racial tension dito," Maximo said.
He called on his fellow Filipinos to maintain friendly relations with all the members of the CNMI community. - Haidee V. Eugenio, GMANews.TV
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Transition Program Under H.R. 3079 By Howard Willens
[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
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
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
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Breakfast With Chairwoman Donna Christensen and Crew
Washington Rep Pete A. Tenorio invited the House and Senate members to host a breakfast meeting with Chairwoman Donna Christensen and her entourage this morning. We were asked to arrive early so that the meeting could begin promptly at 7:30 a.m. I arrived a few minutes before 7:30 expecting a roomful of bright-eyed and bushy-tailed people. But, nope. Only the Speaker and a few lawmakers were there. This gave me a chance to get settled in, grab a hot cup of java and find a seat. I settled on a table with the House legal counsel and the lone representative from Rota, Rep. Chris Ogo, when I heard a slight commotion.
As I looked towards the door, I noticed that the DC contingency had arrived. I saw Speaker Oscar Babauta speaking with Chairwoman Donna Christensen. I walked over to them and waited for an appropriate moment to introduce myself. My initial impression of Chairwoman Christensen is that she's a serious woman who's here to do a job and she's going to make sure she gets the job done.
I gazed over at the rest of the staff who came in behind her. Some looked familiar; others didn't. I'd met some of them during their trip here a few months ago. I recalled meeting and sitting next to a very down-to-earth lady with a friendly face. She introduced herself as Anne Fischer. It turns out she is a JAG Navy Commander sent to escort the group then and now. I've always said that I could sense people's vibes and can tell within minutes of my meeting that person if we're going to be fast friends or mere acquaintances. Anne and I clicked right away. We chatted away over our bento lunches when we met months ago and we greeted each other warmly when we saw each other again this morning.
The next person I met was Congresswoman Madeline Bordallo of Guam. This was the first time we met, and I was surprised when she made mention of my being the "only woman" in the House of Representatives. I didn't expect her to notice, but she knew of this small piece of trivia. Congresswoman Bordallo greeted me with a warm hug and gave me the impression that she was happy to be in the CNMI. I picked up the same good vibes from her as I described above.
On my way back to my table, I ran into Senator Maria Frica Pangelinan. After chatting briefly, she and I decided to join Representative Arnold Palacios at a nearby table. As we sat chatting, Tony Babauta, the lead staff from Chairwoman Christensen's staff, came up to me and invited us to join their table. Seated at the table were Speaker Babauta, Chairwoman Christensen, and Congresswoman Bordallo. I took the seat right next to Congresswoman Bordallo, who was a delight to chat with.
Speaker Babauta gave his opening remarks and introduced all the House members. I always cringe a bit when he introduces me..."And, now, I'd like to introduce our one and only woman in the House, Representative Cinta Kaipat...." Yes, I'm the only woman out of 18 House members, but I don't want the extra attention. He made a few short remarks before turning the mike over to Senate President Joseph Mendiola.
Senator Mendiola introduced the Senate members who were present, and made the same fuss over Senator Maria Frica Pangelinan also being the lone woman in the Senate. Senator Mendiola spoke about the House Bill and the need to take into account what it would mean to overwhelm the Commonwealth with foreign workers and their dependents (spouse and child) which, by his estimation, could mean an influx of 40,000 people into the CNMI. I saw Chairwoman Christensen taking notes on her yellow notepad. After Senator Mendiola finished, they asked if anyone else had anything to say. I looked around, no one had their hand up, so I raised mine. I figured that this was going to be my only chance to say my piece in front of this group, so I may as well make the most of it.
I will tell you what I said in an upcoming post.
As I looked towards the door, I noticed that the DC contingency had arrived. I saw Speaker Oscar Babauta speaking with Chairwoman Donna Christensen. I walked over to them and waited for an appropriate moment to introduce myself. My initial impression of Chairwoman Christensen is that she's a serious woman who's here to do a job and she's going to make sure she gets the job done.
I gazed over at the rest of the staff who came in behind her. Some looked familiar; others didn't. I'd met some of them during their trip here a few months ago. I recalled meeting and sitting next to a very down-to-earth lady with a friendly face. She introduced herself as Anne Fischer. It turns out she is a JAG Navy Commander sent to escort the group then and now. I've always said that I could sense people's vibes and can tell within minutes of my meeting that person if we're going to be fast friends or mere acquaintances. Anne and I clicked right away. We chatted away over our bento lunches when we met months ago and we greeted each other warmly when we saw each other again this morning.
The next person I met was Congresswoman Madeline Bordallo of Guam. This was the first time we met, and I was surprised when she made mention of my being the "only woman" in the House of Representatives. I didn't expect her to notice, but she knew of this small piece of trivia. Congresswoman Bordallo greeted me with a warm hug and gave me the impression that she was happy to be in the CNMI. I picked up the same good vibes from her as I described above.
On my way back to my table, I ran into Senator Maria Frica Pangelinan. After chatting briefly, she and I decided to join Representative Arnold Palacios at a nearby table. As we sat chatting, Tony Babauta, the lead staff from Chairwoman Christensen's staff, came up to me and invited us to join their table. Seated at the table were Speaker Babauta, Chairwoman Christensen, and Congresswoman Bordallo. I took the seat right next to Congresswoman Bordallo, who was a delight to chat with.
Speaker Babauta gave his opening remarks and introduced all the House members. I always cringe a bit when he introduces me..."And, now, I'd like to introduce our one and only woman in the House, Representative Cinta Kaipat...." Yes, I'm the only woman out of 18 House members, but I don't want the extra attention. He made a few short remarks before turning the mike over to Senate President Joseph Mendiola.
Senator Mendiola introduced the Senate members who were present, and made the same fuss over Senator Maria Frica Pangelinan also being the lone woman in the Senate. Senator Mendiola spoke about the House Bill and the need to take into account what it would mean to overwhelm the Commonwealth with foreign workers and their dependents (spouse and child) which, by his estimation, could mean an influx of 40,000 people into the CNMI. I saw Chairwoman Christensen taking notes on her yellow notepad. After Senator Mendiola finished, they asked if anyone else had anything to say. I looked around, no one had their hand up, so I raised mine. I figured that this was going to be my only chance to say my piece in front of this group, so I may as well make the most of it.
I will tell you what I said in an upcoming post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
