1. On federalizing labor and immigration in the CNMI

Writing about the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands' political relationship with the U.S. is a little like walking across a field planted with land mines. There's no really safe place to step.

And opnions can cause explosions.

But since it's important to think about these issues and we have to get across the field, here are some of my thoughts on the subject at the moment.


The CNMI is a territory of the U.S. (And yes, I know that the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to the CNMI.) According to the Covenant (a/k/a P.L. 94-241), we (the CNMI) are under the sovereignty of the U.S.

So we deal with the federal government through the Department of Interior.

David Cohen of Interior urges the people of the CNMI to speak with one voice about the current issues. Those issues include applying the U.S. minimum wage laws to the CNMI and having the U.S. take over immigration, which is currently under local control.

Our Governor (Benigno Fitial), joined by a collection of business organizations like the Chamber of Commerce and the Garment Manufacturers Association, and backed by a letter from the leadership of each house of the CNMI local legislature, has informed White House Chief of Staff that the people of the CNMI oppose federalization of minimum wage and U.S. immigration control here.

I think that position paper misrepresents the "voice" of the people.

Most of the people of the CNMI are ready for change, no matter how rocky the immediate future may be due to it.

I say this based on a variety of sources--the NMC study that showed a majority of businesses thought minimum wage should be raised; the man in the street interviews published in the local newspapers; the results of Saipan Tribune's online poll and my own conversations with a variety of people here.

I personally do not want the CNMI to spend one cent of its very limited budget on a lobbyist to fight against U.S. minimum wage protections for CNMI workers. Or to take a position against federalization.

Most people who live and work in the CNMI want a higher minimum wage than what we have now, which is just $3.05 per hour. Paying this low minimum wage may be legal here, but it is immoral.

People, even hard-working fully-employed people, are kept in poverty by the low minimum wage. And jobs here, no matter how skilled or unskilled the work may be, usually pay minimum wage because we have very few labor unions and an open door to foreign workers, who are willing to accept these low salaries.

This is an old problem. The CNMI has had years to fix it.

When I arrived in 1984, there was a strong feeling that the availability of cheap foreign labor was undercutting fair wages for local workers. There was a call for a moratorium on foreign labor permits. Then-Governor Pedro P. Tenorio agreed to the moratorium, but the date for implementation was delayed again and again, and no moratorium ever happened.

For the first 18 years of my life here, I had faith in the CNMI government to fix the problems of labor and immigration, or at least address them sympathetically, even as I watched one failed attempt after another. I am no fan of U.S. immigration. I love the CNMI.

But the failure of the most liberal and policy-oriented (as opposed to politics-oriented) administration (Governor Juan N. Babauta's) to succeed, despite efforts, convinced me that no locally controlled government could fix our problems. Former Governor Babauta extended the federal minimum wage to all workers employed on government contracts, without legislative support. The legislature never stepped up to help, and that action was immediately rescinded when our new governor took office. Our local government cannot fix these problems because the influence of the business sector (and elected leaders' own business interests) are sufficiently strong to suffocate efforts to raise the minimum wage.

Of course businesses in the CNMI do not want to pay more money to the men and women who labor in their employ. Higher labor costs would cut into their profits. This is not unique to the CNMI and is the same argument made in the U.S. by some.

The prediction that application of U.S. minimum wage standards will cause all to end in an unworkable, failed economy is the same prediction made when minimum wage laws were first enacted, when child labor laws were enacted, when the 40 hour work week became law, when overtime pay was required. These predictions have been made here, and also in the mainland. Why do we give credence to these predictions when the past has shown them to be false?

While the U.S. is moving ahead to raise minimum wages, the CNMI continues to resist. There is no sign that the CNMI is capable of fixing our labor structure to be fair and equitable to both workers and business owners.

And the opposition to increasing the minimum wage ignores the benefits that higher wages will bring. People earning more money will have more disposable income to spend, stimulating the economy. Higher wages will also stimulate a healthy work ethic among the local population of the CNMI. It's hard to want to go to work for $3.05 an hour.

Those with marginal businesses may in fact fail with the adoption of a higher minimum wage. But not all of the businesses in the CNMI are marginal. A positive effect of the failure of marginal businesses is that it gives more room for thriving businesses to develop and grow.

Another positive benefit from the loss of marginal businesses stems from the problem they pose on a different front: many operate to offer only immigration benefits for their relatives from foreign countries. We are a small island community. The population has expanded more rapidly than we can handle. The failure of marginal businesses won't hurt, and it will help, to prevent the continuing influx of foreign workers into the CNMI. And the continuing outflow of money paid to them, which is sent to their families in foreign countries rather than being spent in the local economy.

Business owners here are entitled to a fair profit, but if the only way they can make a profit is to exploit the labor of others, then that profit is no longer fair. And we do not need an economy built on exploitation. It isn't healthy for anyone.

Cheap foreign labor is available in the CNMI only because our elected representatives have continued an immigration system that imposes little control and no protection to the local population. And even less protection to the large numbers of foreign workers who come here, without any means of becoming permanent residents.

Our "cheap" foreign labor has come with a very high cost that has hurt the CNMI. As Mr. Cohen points out, our reputation is in tatters. We are viewed by those in the U.S. who know about us as the worst of slave traders and exploiters.

So now, we have more foreign laborers in the CNMI than we have indigenous or U.S. citizens. And that means we have a majority of the population here excluded from the political process.

The purpose of the Covenant provision keeping control over immigration in the hands of the CNMI was so that we could better protect this small island community from the influx of immigrants. But the CNMI has not handled immigration well. It has not protected our resources from the demand of a rapidly expanding population. It has not protected our economy from Third World practices and a worsening slump. It has not protected our indigenous people from becoming disadvantaged minorities in the CNMI. No wonder so many people here are saying goodbye to their sons and daughters who seek better jobs in Guam and the 50 states.

U.S. control over immigration would have done, and will in the future do, a better job.

But we do have concerns about federalization. We want to make sure that we keep benefits like Supplemental Security Income (Title XVI benefits under the Social Security Act) available here. The CNMI, like the District of Columbia, is part of the U.S. for purposes of these benefits--we don't want that to change. We'll need to figure out how federal take-over of immigration impacts our own food stamp program (if at all). And other CNMI-US political relationship issues will arise. That's why we need a voting delegate in the U.S. Congress. Right now, we have only a non-voting representative who cannot introduce legislation and is little more than an elected (and underpaid) lobbyist.

If we are to speak with one voice, I think the message should be:
1. Yes to U.S. minimum wage, extended in increments. We are the U.S., too, and our people deserve to share in the values and economic progress of all Americans.

2. Yes to federal take-over of immigration. We can retain the wonderful cultures of our indigenous people and still be part of the U.S. We are no less capable than Guam or any place else in the U.S. of adapting to the federal system of shared power.

3. Yes to a delegate in Congress. We have value. Our opinions count. We should be heard in the U.S. Congress.