More on Umbrella Permits

November 12, 2009

Judge Rules Umbrella Permits Must be Issued for Workers with Labor Cases

Superior Court Judge David Wiseman ruled yesterday "that all alien workers who have pending labor cases in court are eligible to obtain the two-year transition conditional permits or umbrella permits.”

Previously, the DOL denied permits to some guest workers with cases.

The Saipan Tribune reported:

"Wiseman issued the ruling as a result of a consensus reached between the CNMI Department of Labor, the Labor Administrative Hearing Office, the Office of the Attorney General, and counsel for Zheng Hua Chang and co-complainants as well as other lawyers for alien workers who have pending labor cases in court.

In issuing the order, the judge recognized the necessity of the issuance of the “umbrella permits” for aliens who have pending judicial review or administrative appeals involving Labor before the court.

Wiseman said those eligible for “umbrella permits” are aliens lawfully admitted to the CNMI and who now hold or formerly held an entry permit issued under Immigration Category 240K, formerly called 706K (contract workers).

Wiseman said these workers have a pending petition for judicial review stemming from a Labor decision in which property or other interests of the aliens are to be determined.

The judge directed Labor to issue 240K “umbrella permits” to these aliens upon request and appropriate documentation.

The judge, however, clarified that the status and authorization granted by his order is subject to revocation by Labor."

Long Lines for Permits
Over 500 nonresidents waited in line yesterday for an umbrella permit according to the Marianas Variety.

The guest workers and immediate releatives told report Junhan Tolendo that they wanted the permits for security reasons. Some "immediate relatives" said that the umbrella permit is really a census conducted by the DOL because they can revoke them at any time.

From the Variety:

Federal immigration law will apply to the CNMI starting on Nov. 28.
Other IRs said they wanted to upgrade their status but most of them do not meet the salary bracket required by the U.S. government. Besides, they added, the processing fee is too high.

“I hope they will waive the fees and adjust the salary bracket,” one of them said.
A former green card holder Zenaida Castro, who works at Hyatt Regency, said her employer advised her to get an umbrella permit.

Another hotel worker, Haidee Bautista of Marianas Resort, said “there’s no harm if we get the permit.”

“For security reason, I will get the permit,” said housewife Marissa Nakagima, a 29-year IR in the CNMI.

At 11 a.m. the line outside Labor grew longer as guest workers and IRs occupied the entire parking area outside the building.

On the second floor of the building, guest workers with “deficiencies” in their transfer and renewal applications also formed a long line up side by side with those scheduled for a hearing of their administrative cases.

“I just like to secure my stay in the CNMI. I like to get the umbrella permit to make it easier for me if I decided to transfer,” said guest worker Norma Laongalong.
Also yesterday, permits for foreign students, investors, long-term business and retiree investors were issued by the Department of Commerce.

Acting Labor Deputy Secretary Barry Hirshbein administered the screening of the umbrella permit issuance. He refused to be interviewed.

Permits will be issued on Rota and on Tinian at the DOL offices on Monday, November 16, 2009, from 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. for all categories of nonresidents.

The Variety reported that DOL said no one will be denied a permit "because of time pressure", and applicants should bring their valid permit card as identification or a passport if the permit card is lonot available.

November 27, 2009 is the deadline to apply for a permit.

What Constitutes a Vote?

November 11, 2009

Today's Marianas Variety has an excellent letter to the editor by attorney Jane Mack of Micronesian Legal Services. It analyzes the way the special initiatives were tallied, and challenges the CEC's method of deciding whether or not the two-thirds requirement was met for the special initiatives.

The letter reads:

I’ve now had an opportunity to review the CNMI Constitution, CNMI statutes, and some cases, including Gutierrez v. Ada (U.S. Supreme Court) and Underwood v. Guam Election Commision (Guam Supreme Court).

Basically I disagree with the interpretation recently given in the newspapers about the votes needed to pass the legislative initiatives and popular initiative.
1. The legislative initiatives become effective if “approved by the majority of votes cast.”

2. The popular initiative becomes effective if “approved by two-thirds of the votes cast by persons qualified to vote in the Commonwealth.”

Both of these standards are found in the CNMI Constitution. Both use the term “votes cast.” (So does the runoff law, P.L. 16-43.)

The Commonwealth Election Commission has decided that the word “votes” means ballots. There are some old cases from other jurisdictions that would support that reading, but many cases, and certainly recent cases with a lot of persuasive power, hold differently — that the word “votes” in this context means a clear and decisive choice on a candidate or issue, and that the ballot is just a means or method of expressing a vote.

If the ballot doesn’t express a vote, then there is no vote.

The phrase “votes cast” also is distinguished from votes not cast. So that just because someone has registered to vote, or been issued a ballot, doesn’t mean they are included in the count for “votes cast.”

The CEC’s reading makes every ballot where the voter did not express an opinion on the legislative initiatives or the popular initiative a “no” vote. It seems wrong for the CEC to vote for people.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in the Gutierrez v. Ada case that a vote is different than a ballot; that the vote cast in any election means the actual votes expressed on the issue at hand. The Guam Supreme Court also separately decided that when people don’t vote, over-vote, or mis-vote, there is no clear expression of their intent and those are not “votes cast.”

The U.S. Supreme Court case is persuasive but not binding authority. The Guam Supreme Court case is also helpful. Our CNMI Supreme Court could read our CNMI Constitution differently. But it is bound by the same rules of construction and the same guiding principals as the U.S. Supreme Court and the Guam Court.

The issue of what is a vote cast is a legal question, not a political question. It needs to be decided by the courts.

Jane Mack
San Vicente, Saipan

The striking line to me from Jane's letter is, "If the ballot doesn’t express a vote, then there is no vote." If a voter did not vote on an initiative than there is no logic in counting that vote as a "no" note, which is essentially what the CEC has done.

$26,000 Spent for PR for Initiatives

The Commonwealth Election Commission hired a PR group to educate the public on the initiatives for $26,000. Glimpses of Guam received the contract in September according to CEC Executive Director Robert A. Guerrero. Interesting since some voters said they knew little about the initiatives and some said they didn't even know that the initiatives were on the reverse side of the ballot.

What did they do to earn $26,000?

Interesting Comment on Election and Cheating

This comment was posted on a post below and I thought it was very interesting:

Anonymous said...
i also have no "facts," only things i've heard from people i think are credible but who refuse to talk to authorities. it's enough to bother my conscience except i'm not sure what to do about it other than post on a blog and hope that perhaps firsthand witnesses will see it and do the right thing.

things like kumoi being offered a job at cuc in exchange for his endorsement. people being offered money or jobs outright for themselves or their family members in exchange for votes. people using their phones in the polling stations to take pictures of their ballots so they can prove their votes and cash in on promises made. pollworkers actually soliciting votes for their candidates. absentee ballots being sent out late to known supporters of the heinz camp. absentee ballots being sent out by CEC staff who were not accompanied by witnesses from the AGO and the OPA.

this election was far from smooth despite what the newspapers reported. there were many complaints that did not get reported. so, so sketchy.

Over 100 Comments Submitted to DHS

November 11, 2009

The comments are flowing in to DHS on the new regulations. Currently there are 117 comments in the docket folder on the Regulations.gov site. The vast majority of the comments are from the foreign contract workers. They raise some very good points.

A comment from Edgar states that he has been a legal foreign worker since 1991. He questions why the Chinese and Russians can come to the CNMI as tourists without visas and why the legal foreign workers who have lived and worked in the CNMI for decades cannot exit the CNMI without having to get a visa abroad for their return. He notes that there is no guarantee that a return visa will be issued.

One commenter wrote:

CNMI needs an economy where the money earned here should stay here and the only way to make the economy stable is to stabilize the status of long term guest workers to a permanent status.

What stability this system will offer to investors who want to put up millions worth of investment if the workforce is unstable? By giving a permanent status for long term guest workers, this will give investors security knowing that there are workforce available.

On travel - the DHS has the ability to consider giving a "parole" or "visa waiver" for those workers holding CNMI permits until the expiration of their permit. CW1 permit should be considered a visa to travel and re-enter CNMI.

While many comments address the issue of entering and exiting the CNMI, some commenters also mention that they want the ability to remain in the CNMI while they have pending cases.

Most mention that the CNMI is their home. Many foreign workers have lived longer in the CNMI than in their homelands. One commenter states:

I studied in Northern Mariana College, now I am one of the contract worker for 6 years. We are all here in Saipan. I have kids both born in CNMI. I consider Saipan is our home specially my kids. Please give preference all the workers wha are already here and give permanent status to all the workers who been here for so many years specially for those who have family here.

Children Submitting Comments

A common theme among the comments is the need to keep families together. Many of the people writing comments concerning this issue are children of the foreign contract workers.

Here is one such comment from a U.S. citizen, child, Carl Marquez:

Dear DHS,

Please give my parents a chance to stay in CNMI because this is my home. My brother and I was born here in this beautiful island. I don't want them to go home back to the Philippines because I want to stay here.

It is not my parents fault why they were here in the island. They came here to work, but due to the economic downturn, my Mom found out to be jobless.

Being a US Citizen child, I need my Mom to stay here to take care of me and my younger brother Jian Carlo.

Thank you.

Carl James A. Marquez

Another U.S. citizen child of foreign contract worker parents explains that her parents have lived and worked in the CNMI for 18 years. She requests that her parents' existing CNMI permits be changed to CW-1 permits, and that they be allowed to exit and enter the CNMI.

She explains, "Some reasons why my they might want to go home is because of family matters and medical purposes. The reason why I want them to be able to come back is because of me."

It's great that the children are so proactive and are involved in voicing their opinions to the government at such an early age.

Some comments are coming from residents. Here is one by Neal Eisgrou from the JC Cafe:

The reason we have foreign workers here in the CNMI is because we need them. That is not going to change; they take the jobs the local residents refuse to take.

The idea that employers and foreign workers are exploiting the local workers is ridiculous. The employers have huge expenses; our utility bills have surcharges that are several times the original cost. Most supplies have to be shipped in which is expensive.

Due to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services inability to come up with concrete options my employees are held captive and are afraid to leave the island.

The USCIS/DHS needs to establish the CW-1 and CW-2 Visas without any complicated restrictions. Employers should not have to pay double fees for employees who were just renewed to convert to the CW-1 and CW-2 Visas. The Visas will need to stay in place decades not just a few years.

Although the DHS does not have the authority to grant status under the CNRA the department will consult with the DOI to recommend status to Congress by May 10, 2010. Many guest workers addressed the issue of status in their comments. One displaced garment factory worker said this:

The new Federal Regulation is the same as the current CNMI Local Government who don't like to give permanent status to all foreign workers, Why?

Thought America is friendly and "is the land of opportunity" why is it that foreign workers who had been serving American's Soil like CNMI were treated like commodities that can be thrown away without protection.

I applied for employment in the US Soil like Saipan on the hope of a greener pasture, but it seems that my hope that I am driven away due to unemployment and poverty.

I spent 15 years in this island working as Quality Controller in a defunct garment industry (L&T Int'l) for 14 years only to find out that a day or two myself and my 2 kids will end up wondering around without employer.

If US-INA is to apply in my case having been in the island for more than 10 years is more than enough for to avail a green card because America own's CNMI land, ALL WORKERS LEGALLY ENTER INTO CNMI LAND ARE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, WE ARE ALL ASSETS NOT LIABILITIES, thank you.

Governor's Comment

Among the comments is one from Governor Fitial, which is a July 18, 2009 letter that he sent to DHS. In the letter he states:

First, the Commonwealth believes that its representatives should be able to review and comment upon, draft regulations being prepared by DHS (and the Departments of Labor and State as well) before they are circulated to the public under the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act or, in the case of the visa waiver provisions (where the APA does not apply), before the regulations are issued in final form. The Commonwealth's United States citizens and all of its residents are going to bear the brunt of regulations issued under this law, which will impact their small island economy in respects not easily understood by federal officials accustomed to working with regulations of national scope. We believe that both the CNMI and the Department will benefit from the Commonwealth's active participation in the regulatory process and its opportunity to review draft regulations before they are issued for public comment.

It seems presumptuous to be suing the United States and the Department of Homeland Security and at the same time requesting to be given "active participation in the regulatory process and its opportunity to review draft regulations before they are issued for public comment."

The governor also requested that the foreign workforce not be reduced during the first two years of transition. Of course, at any time the governor could recommend to the federal government that the nonresidents be given permanent U.S. status. That would not only stabilize the work force, but would give the guest workers political and social rights, which is what the governor, the nativists and business community wants to prevent.

GUEST WORKER SUPPORT CENTER TO POST COMMENTS

The United Worker Movement NMI will set up a support center to assist guest workers in submitting comments on the recently released rules from DHS for three Fridays in November. The center will be held at the Fiestang Pinoy by Juvy Restaurant across Saipan Grand Hotel on Beach Road, Susupe on the following Fridays from 6:00 p.m -10:00 p.m:

November 13

November 20

November 27

The center will have computers, with translators to assist in different languages like Tagalog, Chinese, Bangladeshi, Korean, Sri Lankan, Nepalese, and Hindi.

If you stop by to make a comment, please also sign the new petition requesting status!

If you can't make it to the meeting, you can send in your comments.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2008-0038 by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: You may submit comments directly to USCIS by e-mail at rfs.regs@dhs.gov. Include DHS Docket No. USCIS-2008-0038 in the subject line of the message.
• Mail: Chief, Regulatory Products Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529-2210. To ensure proper handling, please reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2008-0038 on your correspondence. This mailing address may be used for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529-2210. Contact Telephone Number is (202) 272 8377.

Photos by photographer, Itos Feliciano ©2009

Fitial's Anti-Federalization Lawsuit: United States Files Responses

November 10, 2009

Trial Attorney Theodore W. Atkinson from the United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation filed two documents today in the District Court of the District of Columbia in response to Governor Fitial's most recent court filings to support the motion for a preliminary injunction against federalization.

The Defendant, the United States notes in the DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM FILED OCTOBER 30, 2009 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION that the Plaintiff's (Fitial Administration's) new arguments were prompted by the issuance of the newly released DHS regulations. The response states:

The CNMI’s latest arguments – none of which address the authority of the United States, as the recognized sovereign in the political relationship between the parties, to apply federal immigration law under Section 503 of the Covenant – should be rejected by this Court.

The United States claims that the "recently issued regulations do not confer standing to the CNMI."

The United States further claims that "the issuance of the Interim Permit Rule does not add to or alter the CNMI’s arguments concerning the constitutionality of the Act." In this section of the document the attorneys answered the question that I had asked in an earlier post: "What could happen if Fitial were to win an injunction or the anti-federalization lawsuit? Could the U.S. Congress then write and pass legislation that applies the same immigration law to the CNMI that exists in the U.S. with no special provisions or transition considerations?"

From the response (emphasis added):

Without the provisions of the Act creating a transitional worker permitting system (and without the Interim Permit Rule implementing the permit system mandated by the Act), nonresident workers in the CNMI would be subject to immediate removal from the CNMI under federal immigration laws not challenged by the CNMI, once those laws take effect on November 28, 2009.The provisions of the Act (and implementing regulations) challenged by the CNMI prevent such a result, because they transition the CNMI from a CNMI-only system to the federal immigration system over time, with allowance for extension if warranted by the economic situation in the CNMI during transition. If the CNMI believes that the imposition of a preliminary injunction will allow it to continue with its own nonresident worker employment system, it is incorrect. The CNMI must know that even if it is successful in obtaining an injunction, there will be an immediate application of federal immigration laws to the CNMI (without transition), which would immediately render nonresident workers in the CNMI removable, and which could lead to their removal either immediately or in the near term. The CNMI’s claims regarding economic injury arising from the implementation of the transitional worker permitting system under the Act is speculative, but the impact of an immediate application of federal immigration laws to the CNMI is not.

This section also clarifies the CNMI's lack of understanding of U.S. immigration laws and how they relate to nonresident workers. From the document:

That DHS issued one interim rule to create the mandated non-resident worker permitting system, and another to conform existing regulations is unremarkable, and not evidence that the Act’s transitional nonresident work permit system is not part of federal immigration law.

Moreover, as the United States noted in its reply in support of the motion to dismiss, a fundamental aspect of federal immigration law is employer-by-employer, worker-by worker approval of alien workers. See Reply in Supp. of MTD at 24-25. This encompasses aliens who seek certain immigration status for employment reasons (e.g., such as H-2A migrant worker status that carries with it authorization to work). It includes employer-based immigrants (see §204(a)(1)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(F)). It also includes the most significant categories of work-authorized nonimmigrants (see § 214(c) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)). The assertion that “immigration” laws do not include nonresident labor and foreign workforce regulations ignores large sections of the INA, and is contradicted by two of the fundamental purposes of immigration law: to ensure that U.S. citizens have access to domestic employment opportunities, and to protect U.S. citizens from wage depression resulting from the presence of inexpensive nonresident labor.

The conclusion outlines the compelling reasons that the law was passed and cites statements of Hon. Donna Christensen, Delegate to Congress from the U.S. Virgin Islands);, David Cohen, Deputy Asst. Secy of the Interior for Insular Affairs, and Wendy L. Doromal, Human Rights Advocate before the House Hearing. It concludes:

In 2008, Congress acted to protect its national interests, the security of its territory, and the economic well-being of the U.S. citizens who largely populate the CNMI. Congress did so under the authority the United States retains as the political sovereign, pursuant to Section 503 of the Covenant between the parties, and it did so on a transitional basis in consideration of the economic needs of the CNMI.

This Court should properly conclude that Congress properly exercised its authority in enacting the CNRA and applying federal immigration law, including the transitional work permit system, to the CNMI. It should deny the CNMI’s motion for a preliminary injunction and grant the United States’ motion to dismiss.

The DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM FILED OCTOBER 30, 2009 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION almost mirrors the first response.

Both of the responses are straight forward and very clear. I think that the anti-federalization lawsuit lacks merit and will be dismissed.

More holes in the umbrellas

November 10, 2009

Worker advocates Boni Sagana and Rabby Syed are asking the CNMI Department of Labor to reveal the criteria that DOL has established for "overstayers" to obtain umbrella permits.

On October 29, 2009 Hirschbein and DOL "volunteer" called on all "overstayers" to request a waiver from the Division of Immigration in order to be considered for an umbrella permit.

Yesterday Director Barry Hirschbein stated that there was "no guarantee that overstayers can get the umbrella permit."

Last week the DOL started issuing waivers to workers whose names are on the "overstayers' list", but Hirschbein claims that waivers are only requests for the permits.

From the Marianas Variety:

Some overstayers said they got their waivers last week and were told to return to Labor on Monday.

Yesterday, they said they were expecting to get their umbrella permit but Labor sent them home.

Hirshbein said they cannot attend to the requested of the overstayers until they are done with the concerns of the legitimate guest workers.

He said Labor is expected to publish the names of overstayers who can avail of the umbrella permit.

But they have no date yet for the publication of the names.

Boni Sagana, a guest worker advocate, said Labor should come up with the criteria for overstayers qualified to get the umbrella permit.

Now the overstayers are being told to return to their country of origin according to advocate, Rabby Syed. Guest workers said that there is no set system for overstayers and they are requesting clarification.

The Marianas Variety reports:

Labor, he added, should clarify the eligibility of overstayers who were misinformed about the umbrella permit.

He said Labor and the Division of Immigration must disclose what will happen to the overstayers who present themselves to the authorities.

“Some of these people believe they could get umbrella permit but I was told by Labor that there will be a different ‘system’ for the overstayers,” he said.

He added that the overstayers are “totally confused as to what Labor is telling them which contradicts what Immigration is saying."

He believes that there is miscommunication among the overstayers, Labor and Immigration.

Labor and Immigration, he added, should work closely to determine what to do with the overstayers.

Some overstayers interviewed by this reporter said they are still hoping that they could stay and be given an umbrella permit.

Is this some kind of attempt to document "overstayers"? Attorney Robert Meyers has already challenged this confusing umbrella permit system.

System is a Disorganized Mess

Over 400 guest workers and nonresidents lined up yesterday for umbrella permits, some waiting in line for more than five hours. Some complained of no assistance or instruction for DOL personnel.

Some say that the umbrella permits were said to be an election ploy or were introduced as an attempt to bolster the case for an injunction against federalization. Maybe the Fitial Administration has lost interest and is focusing attention elsewhere.

Where is the Secretary of Labor? Does he even work there anymore? Is he still receiving a salary? Is Kaipat back at work? The Marianas Variety reported that there was mass confusion:

Fifteen other people interviewed by this reporter said the line was almost immobile.

Some of the people who just arrived do not know where to fall in line because no one was assisting them and there were no instructions on what they were supposed to do.

An automobile shop employee, Leandro, who refused to disclose his surname, said some of them eventually found out that they were in the line for IR’s.
“It’s a total mess,” he said. “People do not know where to go.”

He said they were not instructed where to line up and who to talk to with regards to their papers.

He said they were all hoping to process their papers before 4 p.m. but noted “that seems to be impossible” because of the number of people in line.

The Department of Labor said all its staff members were busy and could not comment.

Busy? Were they also too" busy" to wait on the four hundred people that stood outside in a line? This certainly does not seem like the organized and "better-than-the-program-in-the-states" CNMI Department of Labor that the Fitial Administration presented in documents to the District Court last week. Were they also too "busy" to have a person go outside and explain the process and the reason for the unreasonably long wait? What a total lack of respect for the people waiting in line!

Special Initiatives: should have passed?

November 10, 2009

Finally, some logic in the discussion on the counting of the special initiatives. Rep. Tina Sablan is challenging the Election Commission's decision in not ratifying the four initiatives. It is very odd that the commission is counting the initiatives on "votes cast" in the entire election rather than the total votes actually cast on the initiatives. It makes no sense.

All four initiatives received the required two-thirds majority needed to pass based on the total votes cast for each intitiative.

The Marianas Variety reported:

Majority of the ballots counted on Saturday were in favor of the initiatives, but the commission and the Attorney General’s Office contend that they did not meet the required number of votes.

The AGO included overvotes and undervotes in computing the total number of votes cast last Saturday.

Rep. Tina Sablan, Ind.-Saipan, who toiled for years to get the Open Government initiative on the ballot, said there are case laws that determine the definition of “votes cast.”

The commission is scheduled to meet again this Friday and Sablan plans to submit her comments.

“The Constitution now requires a runoff election if no gubernatorial candidate is able to garner more than 50 percent of the votes ‘cast and counted’ in the general election. The winner of the runoff election will be the candidate who is able to secure more than 50 percent of the votes cast and counted,” she said.

“The phrase ‘votes cast and counted’ only appears in reference to the gubernatorial runoff election — it does not appear anywhere else in the Constitution. With respect to legislative and popular initiatives, the Constitution only references ‘votes cast.’ So, for example, a legislative initiative requires a simple majority of the votes cast, and a popular initiative to enact a general law requires 2/3 of the votes cast.

“The question that arises is, ‘What is the difference between a vote cast, and a vote that is cast and counted?’ ”

In their initial reading of the Constitution, she added, the Election Commission and the AGO interpreted that a “vote cast” means a ballot cast.

“Thus, all the ballots that were submitted, including those that did not have any votes marked at all on the initiatives, were considered in the total number of ‘votes cast’ even though they weren’t actually counted as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ votes.

Rep. Sablan also answered the question that I had. How were the votes counted in previous elections involving initiatives? The Variety reported that Rep. Sablan said, "In previous elections, it was not “ballots cast” but the votes that were actually cast on the initiatives that were counted as “votes cast.”

How can they now decide that the votes will be counted in a different way for this election?

Attorney Jane Mack of Micronesian Legal Services agrees with Rep. Sablan. On her Saipan Writer blog she said that she too disagrees with the CEC's decision.

GUEST WORKER NEWS

November 5, 2009

The United Worker Movement NMI will set up a support center to assist guest workers in submitting comments on the recently released rules from DHS. The center will be held at the Fiestang Pinoy by Juvy Restaurant across Saipan Grand Hotel on Beach Road, Susupe on the following Fridays from 6:00 p.m -10:00 p.m:

November 13

November 20

November 27

The center will have computers, with translators to assist in different languages like Tagalog, Chinese, Bangladeshi, Korean, Sri Lankan, Nepalese, and Hindi.

From the Saipan Tribune:

The group said it plans to facilitate the submission of comments by centralizing the receipt of all comments and submitting them to the Department of Homeland Security.

“We have a lot of concerns regarding the transitional worker program for the CNMI that we need to bring to the Department of Homeland Security's attention. We have a very small time to submit comments on the rules and regulation of this program. We are asking all brothers and sisters to come up with their comments [and] concerns before Nov. 25, 2009,” the group said in a statement.

The United Workers Movement NMI-an umbrella group composed of Pilcowa, Dekada and other worker's leaders-will be setting up a support center that will help alien workers who want to give comments on the transitional worker program.

_____________________

The guest workers may not be able to vote, but they can comment. Be sure to post your comment before the deadline. There are a few comments already posted on the Regulations Website. Most are from guest workers.

Here is a comment that Malou submitted that has not been posted yet:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security
111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 3008
Washington, DC 20528-2060

RE: Docket Number-USCIS-2008-0038

Thank you for the giving me the chance to participate in this comment process for Transitional Workers Program for the CNMI in accordance to provisions of Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008.

Under III-A&F, the section concerning hiring abroad of workers. At present, according to the Department of Labor, CNMI, there are about 13,000 holders of CNMI permit and more or less 3,000 whose CNMI permits are on process, not to mention the foreign workers who are holding temporary permit and some still waiting for their unclaimed wages and unsettled labor cases.

Please be it known to you that some CNMI Permit holders do not have job for quite some time now due to different reasons and circumstances. May I therefore recommend that bringing in more workers under CW-1 status abroad should be deleted in this regulations? Utilize and/or prioritize foreign workers who are on-islands if no available U.S. citizens for job vacancy. By opening your door in hiring abroad, I can see more schemes and scams in bringing in new workers. Likewise, this maybe another way to squeeze money from foreign workers who want to work in U.S. soil and this would add up to human trafficking cases in CNMI which some are not yet resolved. Also, this could give a sort of protection or security on the part of long term guest workers. Under this section also, the CNMI must not increase the total number of alien workers present in CNMI and should reduced the number of grants of CW-1 status.

Under III-D, Petitioning Procedures-It would be easier and cheaper for the employer to petition more than one worker on the same form as long as employees are all working for the same period of time and in same location regardless of the occupational category as long as the employees to be petitioned are already in CNMI. With this, the employers could easily transfer all their employees that are ineligible under INA qualifications that are currently holding CNMI permits. And consequently will result in more orderly transition in phasing out the CNMI’s nonresident contract worker program.

Under III-F-Lawful Presence and Travel-As the rule states: CW-1 or CW-2 nonimmigrant may leave the CNMI and return, BUT must have appropriate visa for readmission. The rule should allow holders of CW-1 and CW-2 to leave and re-enter CNMI without obtaining another visa from country of origin since these permits would be issued by Department of Homeland Security.

Since the DHS allowed the foreign workers to work and stay in CNMI up to the validity of their permit, then it should be therefore acceptable on your Department to use this permit to leave and re-enter CNMI. It is clearly stated in the permit issued by Division of Immigration, CNMI that this is an “ENTRY PERMIT”. I suggest that DHS could just give a sort of a visa waiver provided that any foreign workers who wish to travel with CNMI Entry Permit must notify 2 weeks in advance your office here in Saipan, CNMI about their travel and you could just require them to submit additional requirements like: CNMI Entry Permit that still valid for 90 days; valid passport; airline ticket to show itinerary and country where the foreign workers and his/her dependent will be travelling.

If visa waiver became possible for Chinese and Russians nationals, how could it be impossible to give the same kind to aliens workers who came in legally and have worked and lived here some more than decades?=

To reduce CW-1 permits holder yearly and to zero out the aliens workers by December 31, 2014, may I therefore recommend that an IMPROVED STATUS for long term guest workers, who became and still significant part of the CNMI economy and have been an important part of this community be recognized by giving them a more permanent status.

If the DHS/USCIS was able to create a special visa like E-2 CNMI Only, CW-1 CNMI Only, visa waiver for Chinese and Russians, I do believe you can also create another type of status not under INA, which maybe called PRC-CNMI Only. PRC-CNMI Only will stand for Permanent Resident Cardholder-CNMI only for a period of 3 years and after 3 years those that who have shown to be lawful and productive resident of CNMI may adjust his/her status to a U.S. citizen. Need a petitioner? Then let our U.S. citizen friends and relatives be our own petitioner.

In conclusion, the proposed rule should change the hiring abroad of additional foreign workers; permitting the foreign workers to travel with the CNMI Entry Permit with Visa Waiver and how to easily and orderly manner the employers can transit their employees and to provide a more permanent status for long term guest workers.

Sincerely yours,

Maria Lourdes H. Berueco

_____________________________

If you stop by to make a comment, please also sign the new petition requesting status!

If you can't make it to the meeting you can send in your comments.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2008-0038 by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: You may submit comments directly to USCIS by e-mail at rfs.regs@dhs.gov. Include DHS Docket No. USCIS-2008-0038 in the subject line of the message.
• Mail: Chief, Regulatory Products Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529-2210. To ensure proper handling, please reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2008-0038 on your correspondence. This mailing address may be used for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529-2210. Contact Telephone Number is (202) 272 8377.