I have updated the table of articles by Maya Kara and Bruce Mailman on immigration matters. Their first articles were published in the Marianas Variety and those links no longer work. I've left them on the list, though, in case you want to track down the articles in hard copy.
The later articles are in the Saipan Tribune and those links are now up-to-date.
There is a lot of good information here and I encourage readers interested in the immigration topic in the CNMI to read these articles. I don't always agree with the opinions of Maya and Bruce, but their information on the law is reliable.
Showing posts with label federalization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federalization. Show all posts
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Power Struggle over Alien Labor
The CNMI has been struggling to hold on to power throughout the transition to U.S. control of immigration.
A BIT OF HISTORY
For years the CNMI has opposed federal immigration and clung to its own control of immigration through many tactics. The most notorious action included hiring the lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
It opposed all attempts to extend U.S. immigration control to the CNMI for decades, but it finally lost the battle when the U.S. Congress passed the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. This became P.L. 110-229. Title VII of this act addresses "immigration, security and labor" in the Northern Mariana Islands.
THE CNRA
The CNRA extends U.S. immigration to the CNMI, but it first provides for a transition period. This started on November 28, 2009.
The CNRA provides for the federal immigration authorities to take over CNMI immigration on the effective date of the transition period (11/28/2009). It also provides for the end of CNMI immigration on that date.
During the first two years of the transition period, aliens who had lawful status on the effective date of the transition period under the CNMI immigration laws are not subject to deportation for violation of INA sec. 212 (a)(6)(A), 8 USC 1182 (a)(6)(A); that protection lasts until "completion of the period of the alien's admission under the immigration laws of the Commonwealth", or 11/27/2011, whichever is first.
During the first two years of the transition period, aliens who were permitted to work on the effective date of the transition period under the CNMI laws are deemed to have US authority to work during their protected period of presence in the CNMI.
Although the CNRA states that its purpose is to provide a phase-out of the "nonresident contract worker program of the Commonwealth" and a phase-in of US immigration, the law actually cuts off CNMI authority over immigration on the transition effective date (11/28/2009) and puts the entire management of the transition program regarding alien admission and labor under the U.S. authorities. The CNRA phase-out relates only to presence and ability to work of aliens admitted under the prior CNMI laws. The US transition program also, in some ways, mimics the CNMI alien worker program, and so it, too, is an element of the phase-out of a nonresident contract worker program, even though it is a new and separate program.
THE FITIAL LAWSUIT
The CNMI administration, led by Governor Fitial, challenged the CNRA law in federal court. It claimed that the law would ruin the CNMI by depriving the CNMI of foreign labor needed for the economy. It also claimed that the CNMI administration strongly wanted to stabilize the labor market in the CNMI, and had authority over labor; and that the US authority was limited to immigration.
The federal court finally determined that there was no basis for the challenge and dismissed the CNMI's complaint as to the CNRA. CNMI v. U.S., #08-1572 (U.S. Dist. Ct. D.C., 2009). (Opinion available here.)
The only portion of the CNMI lawsuit that garnered success was the challenge to the late "adoption" of regulations for the US-administered transitional worker program. This had the effect of derailing the availability of new transitional workers being admitted. Until final regs are adopted, no new workers under a transitional CW permit can be hired.
UMBRELLA PERMITS
However, there remain in the CNMI many alien workers who actually have jobs or who had authority to seek transfers to new employers under the CNMI regime. In the final days of CNMI control of immigration, the CNMI issued "umbrella permits" which were a last-ditch measure, ostensibly to stabilize the labor force and provide the maximum allowable time under the CNRA to alien workers here. These were handed out in a mad rush, while aliens lined up for hours, day and night. The "umbrella permits" provided the maximum allowable time for admission to the CNMI under CNRA law--through 11/27/2011.
But the permits also had "revocation" dates stamped on them.
It was clear even at the time that the CNMI government was issuing the "umbrella permits" that it had an ulterior motive. It wanted to extend its control over alien labor through the two year period.
THE MOST RECENT POWER STRUGGLE
And so the struggle for power over alien labor continues in the CNMI.
After 11/28/2009, the CNMI Department of Labor started scheduling appointments for , charging fees about, and "revoking" some of the newly issued umbrella permits.
The U.S. Ombudsman, Pam Brown, went on record saying that the USCIS would honor all umbrella permits as authority to stay until 11/27/2011 and would not honor any "revocation."
The CNMI DOL, through Jacinta Kaipat, lambasted Pam Brown, calling her reckless and accusing her of creating confusion, and insisting that she did not speak for the U.S. government. Kaipat told the CNMI Legislature that CNMI DOL can maintain control over umbrella permits. She had the backing of the CNMI AG, Ed Buckingham.
The Assistant Secretary for the Interior, Tony Babauta then joined the fray, supporting Pam Brown's position as that of the U.S.
On March 15, 2010, according to the CNMI newspapers, the USCIS released information on umbrella permits and other alien labor matters in a question and answer format. This official US government information fully corroborated the information provided by the Ombudsman--that the US will honor umbrella permits as permission to stay and to work and that it will not recognize CNMI revocations done after 11/27/2009.
And on March 16, 2010, the newspapers carried Governor Fitial's very different answers to the questions, re-asserting the CNMI's power to revoke umbrella permits (and significantly, charge fees in connection with their non-revocation). The CNMI Attorney General issued an opinion that the CNMI retained legal authority and could revoke alien labor permits.
You can read much more detail about the entire history of the struggle at Unheard No More. You can read the CNMI Department of Labor's press releases at their blog, CNMI Labor Forum.
THE BASIC AREA OF CONTENTION
It is clear that the U.S. and the CNMI government authorities do not agree on the meaning of the CNRA. They do not agree on the scope of authority to the US and the limitations of authority on the CNMI.
I am not sure, but it appears that this disagreement may be limited to the transition period issues. For example, it seems beyond debate that after the transition, the CNMI will have the same limitations on its immigration/labor powers as every state does. It will have the same powers as every state, too.
It is not clear whether the disagreement about control and authority will extend beyond the first two years of transition. At present, the debate centers around the umbrella permit, which at best ends 11/27/2011.
The transition presents unique questions because it has not occurred before, so there is no guidance from any state or federal authority on how to interpret the CNMI's role under the CNRA for now.
SOME LEGAL ANALYSIS
Nothing in the CNRA can be read as authority for the CNMI's continued enforcement of its former alien labor program.
The umbrella permits are immigration permits to be present in the CNMI on the effective date of the transition. They expressly state that they are effective until 11/27/2011. The USCIS is recognizing them for that period of time.
This recognition by the USCIS provides the stability of an alien labor pool that the CNMI claimed to want. Aliens holding umbrella permits have the CNRA protections-they can't be deported for violation of INA sec. 212 (a)(6)(A), 8 USC 1182 (a)(6)(A) until the completion of the period of their admission or 11/27/2011, whichever is first. They can work during that time period.
The US reads the CNRA as authority that the CNMI can't retroactively effect the period of admission. And that seems most consistent with the text and the purpose of the CNRA law.
The CNMI tries to bootstrap its way into a two-year extension of its labor policies and programs. The CNMI's struggle seems more about getting fees and making alien workers jump through hoops, keeping them hostage, than it does about providing a stable pool of labor.
THE CNRA AGAIN
At present, we have only the language of the CNRA to consider when it comes to the issue of foreign workers in the CNMI. None of the federal agencies tasked with its enforcement have issued final regulations regarding its implementation.
This is significant. If the USCIS were to issue regulations, the CNMI may recognize their pre-emptive authority. The AG's opinion at footnote 2, acknowledges the pre-emptive power of regulations, citing Fidelity Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. de la Cuesta, 485 U.S. 141, 153 (1982). However the footnote also gives some clue that the CNMI would likely argue that any regs that differed significantly from its own interpretation of the CNRA would be challenged as an impermissible construction of the statute.
The central issue between the US and the CNMI seems to focus on the effect of the CNMI status for aliens who remain for the two year period. The CNMI reads the CNRA as impliedly giving it authority to continue to effectuate its alien labor laws as long as there are aliens in the CNMI who were admitted pursuant to those laws.
The footnote to this claim says that the power extends to "Commonwealth immigration status of aliens legally present on November 28, 2009 ...including compliance with the express provisions set forth in the permits issued by the Commonwealth."
This interpretation takes several huge leaps in logic. It also blurs the distinction between immigration and labor.
The CNRA explicitly pre-empted admissibility and removal of aliens from the CNMI. Thus, there is no longer any "Commonwealth immigration status of aliens."
The Attorney General's opinion states that the CNRA expressly provides that the Commonwealth immigration status may continue during the transition period, but that statement is inaccurate. The CNRA provides protection from removal and authority to work, but it does not "continue" the CNMI alien status. No such status now exists. There can be no CNMI administration of such status.
The CNRA protects those who had such status on the transition effective date from removal for the period of time for which they were granted lawful admission by the CNMI prior to the effective date of the CNRA. If they were authorized to work on the transition effective date, they shall be considered authorized "by the Secretary of Homeland Security" to be employed until "the expiration of the alien's employment authorization under the immigration laws of the Commonwealth" or 11/27/2011, whichever is earlier. Everything is determined at the transition effective date. No where in the CNRA does it say that the CNMI can retroactively change the period of time for which aliens were granted admission or authorized to work.
The CNMI argues that aliens with umbrella permits might not have been able to stay for the full two years if they didn't comply with certain CNMI labor requirements; so the CNMI should continue to be allowed to enforce those requirements.
The CNRA does not say this. It does not suggest this. The clarity of the "transition effective date" as the date upon which rights and privileges are determined contradicts this interpretation. Furthermore, the CNRA expressly gives the US control over the transitional worker program, making it clear that it is the US that is to administer labor and immigration issues during the transition, not the CNMI. It would conflict with the CNRA's transitional worker program administered by the US to allow the CNMI to continue to administer its own alien worker program during the transition. Even more clearly, the CNRA expressly states that the Secretary of Homeland Security is deemed to have authorized employement for those present and authorized by the CNMI on the transition program effective date; how can the CNMI now revoke the Secretary of Homeland Security's authorization to work?
PRE-EMPTION
The CNMI Attorney General's Opinion does a good job of laying out the basics of pre-emption. Quoting from the opinion, in part...
All of this is accurate and helpful.
It also helps clarify why the CNMI's interpretation of the CNRA is twisted and illogical.
The CNRA deals with immigration. The US federal court, in the challenge by the Fitial administration, clearly recognized that the alien labor portions of the CNRA are immigration matters. Employment authorization is a condition of admission and working without it may lead to removal; these are directly within the zone of the statute's pre-emption--admission and removal.
This law preempts the CNMI's attempt to regulate alien labor, both by field pre-emption and conflict pre-emption.
The CNMI wants to do something different than what the US is doing in the very field that the CNRA deals with--alien labor. The US transition program for alien labor clearly puts this power with the US government. The Secretary of Homeland Security is deemed to have authorized the employment of aliens as of the effective date of the transition period (11/28/2009). The CNMI can't reovke the Secretary of Homeland Security's authorization for employment. It can't pass laws now that effect status of any alien or add burdens not contemplated by Congress.
The real shame in all of this is the harm caused by the CNMI's unwillingness to be fair and rational in the transition to US immigration. Its refusal to turn over data, the verbal attacks on US officials, the waste of limited CNMI resources by litigating and continuing to press untenable positions is all very seriously harmful. And for alien workers and employers caught in the midst of this kerfuffle, the harm is not just lost wages and lost profits, but also stress and worry and uncertainty.
EDIT: For another take on this power struggle, see the Saipan Tribune column by Maya Kara and Bruce Mailman.
A BIT OF HISTORY
For years the CNMI has opposed federal immigration and clung to its own control of immigration through many tactics. The most notorious action included hiring the lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
It opposed all attempts to extend U.S. immigration control to the CNMI for decades, but it finally lost the battle when the U.S. Congress passed the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. This became P.L. 110-229. Title VII of this act addresses "immigration, security and labor" in the Northern Mariana Islands.
THE CNRA
The CNRA extends U.S. immigration to the CNMI, but it first provides for a transition period. This started on November 28, 2009.
The CNRA provides for the federal immigration authorities to take over CNMI immigration on the effective date of the transition period (11/28/2009). It also provides for the end of CNMI immigration on that date.
During the first two years of the transition period, aliens who had lawful status on the effective date of the transition period under the CNMI immigration laws are not subject to deportation for violation of INA sec. 212 (a)(6)(A), 8 USC 1182 (a)(6)(A); that protection lasts until "completion of the period of the alien's admission under the immigration laws of the Commonwealth", or 11/27/2011, whichever is first.
During the first two years of the transition period, aliens who were permitted to work on the effective date of the transition period under the CNMI laws are deemed to have US authority to work during their protected period of presence in the CNMI.
Although the CNRA states that its purpose is to provide a phase-out of the "nonresident contract worker program of the Commonwealth" and a phase-in of US immigration, the law actually cuts off CNMI authority over immigration on the transition effective date (11/28/2009) and puts the entire management of the transition program regarding alien admission and labor under the U.S. authorities. The CNRA phase-out relates only to presence and ability to work of aliens admitted under the prior CNMI laws. The US transition program also, in some ways, mimics the CNMI alien worker program, and so it, too, is an element of the phase-out of a nonresident contract worker program, even though it is a new and separate program.
THE FITIAL LAWSUIT
The CNMI administration, led by Governor Fitial, challenged the CNRA law in federal court. It claimed that the law would ruin the CNMI by depriving the CNMI of foreign labor needed for the economy. It also claimed that the CNMI administration strongly wanted to stabilize the labor market in the CNMI, and had authority over labor; and that the US authority was limited to immigration.
The federal court finally determined that there was no basis for the challenge and dismissed the CNMI's complaint as to the CNRA. CNMI v. U.S., #08-1572 (U.S. Dist. Ct. D.C., 2009). (Opinion available here.)
The only portion of the CNMI lawsuit that garnered success was the challenge to the late "adoption" of regulations for the US-administered transitional worker program. This had the effect of derailing the availability of new transitional workers being admitted. Until final regs are adopted, no new workers under a transitional CW permit can be hired.
UMBRELLA PERMITS
However, there remain in the CNMI many alien workers who actually have jobs or who had authority to seek transfers to new employers under the CNMI regime. In the final days of CNMI control of immigration, the CNMI issued "umbrella permits" which were a last-ditch measure, ostensibly to stabilize the labor force and provide the maximum allowable time under the CNRA to alien workers here. These were handed out in a mad rush, while aliens lined up for hours, day and night. The "umbrella permits" provided the maximum allowable time for admission to the CNMI under CNRA law--through 11/27/2011.
But the permits also had "revocation" dates stamped on them.
It was clear even at the time that the CNMI government was issuing the "umbrella permits" that it had an ulterior motive. It wanted to extend its control over alien labor through the two year period.
THE MOST RECENT POWER STRUGGLE
And so the struggle for power over alien labor continues in the CNMI.
After 11/28/2009, the CNMI Department of Labor started scheduling appointments for , charging fees about, and "revoking" some of the newly issued umbrella permits.
The U.S. Ombudsman, Pam Brown, went on record saying that the USCIS would honor all umbrella permits as authority to stay until 11/27/2011 and would not honor any "revocation."
The CNMI DOL, through Jacinta Kaipat, lambasted Pam Brown, calling her reckless and accusing her of creating confusion, and insisting that she did not speak for the U.S. government. Kaipat told the CNMI Legislature that CNMI DOL can maintain control over umbrella permits. She had the backing of the CNMI AG, Ed Buckingham.
The Assistant Secretary for the Interior, Tony Babauta then joined the fray, supporting Pam Brown's position as that of the U.S.
On March 15, 2010, according to the CNMI newspapers, the USCIS released information on umbrella permits and other alien labor matters in a question and answer format. This official US government information fully corroborated the information provided by the Ombudsman--that the US will honor umbrella permits as permission to stay and to work and that it will not recognize CNMI revocations done after 11/27/2009.
And on March 16, 2010, the newspapers carried Governor Fitial's very different answers to the questions, re-asserting the CNMI's power to revoke umbrella permits (and significantly, charge fees in connection with their non-revocation). The CNMI Attorney General issued an opinion that the CNMI retained legal authority and could revoke alien labor permits.
You can read much more detail about the entire history of the struggle at Unheard No More. You can read the CNMI Department of Labor's press releases at their blog, CNMI Labor Forum.
THE BASIC AREA OF CONTENTION
It is clear that the U.S. and the CNMI government authorities do not agree on the meaning of the CNRA. They do not agree on the scope of authority to the US and the limitations of authority on the CNMI.
I am not sure, but it appears that this disagreement may be limited to the transition period issues. For example, it seems beyond debate that after the transition, the CNMI will have the same limitations on its immigration/labor powers as every state does. It will have the same powers as every state, too.
It is not clear whether the disagreement about control and authority will extend beyond the first two years of transition. At present, the debate centers around the umbrella permit, which at best ends 11/27/2011.
The transition presents unique questions because it has not occurred before, so there is no guidance from any state or federal authority on how to interpret the CNMI's role under the CNRA for now.
SOME LEGAL ANALYSIS
Nothing in the CNRA can be read as authority for the CNMI's continued enforcement of its former alien labor program.
The umbrella permits are immigration permits to be present in the CNMI on the effective date of the transition. They expressly state that they are effective until 11/27/2011. The USCIS is recognizing them for that period of time.
This recognition by the USCIS provides the stability of an alien labor pool that the CNMI claimed to want. Aliens holding umbrella permits have the CNRA protections-they can't be deported for violation of INA sec. 212 (a)(6)(A), 8 USC 1182 (a)(6)(A) until the completion of the period of their admission or 11/27/2011, whichever is first. They can work during that time period.
The US reads the CNRA as authority that the CNMI can't retroactively effect the period of admission. And that seems most consistent with the text and the purpose of the CNRA law.
The CNMI tries to bootstrap its way into a two-year extension of its labor policies and programs. The CNMI's struggle seems more about getting fees and making alien workers jump through hoops, keeping them hostage, than it does about providing a stable pool of labor.
THE CNRA AGAIN
At present, we have only the language of the CNRA to consider when it comes to the issue of foreign workers in the CNMI. None of the federal agencies tasked with its enforcement have issued final regulations regarding its implementation.
This is significant. If the USCIS were to issue regulations, the CNMI may recognize their pre-emptive authority. The AG's opinion at footnote 2, acknowledges the pre-emptive power of regulations, citing Fidelity Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. de la Cuesta, 485 U.S. 141, 153 (1982). However the footnote also gives some clue that the CNMI would likely argue that any regs that differed significantly from its own interpretation of the CNRA would be challenged as an impermissible construction of the statute.
The central issue between the US and the CNMI seems to focus on the effect of the CNMI status for aliens who remain for the two year period. The CNMI reads the CNRA as impliedly giving it authority to continue to effectuate its alien labor laws as long as there are aliens in the CNMI who were admitted pursuant to those laws.
"The Commonwealth retains authority over certain immigration status issues regarding aliens lawfully in the Commonwealth as of the CNRA's effective date, November 28, 2009. This is because the CNRA provides a two-year transition period, during which Commonwealth immigration status must be respected and, by implication, the Commonwealth maintains jurisdiction to administer, and in a proper case, revoke that status."
The footnote to this claim says that the power extends to "Commonwealth immigration status of aliens legally present on November 28, 2009 ...including compliance with the express provisions set forth in the permits issued by the Commonwealth."
This interpretation takes several huge leaps in logic. It also blurs the distinction between immigration and labor.
The CNRA explicitly pre-empted admissibility and removal of aliens from the CNMI. Thus, there is no longer any "Commonwealth immigration status of aliens."
The Attorney General's opinion states that the CNRA expressly provides that the Commonwealth immigration status may continue during the transition period, but that statement is inaccurate. The CNRA provides protection from removal and authority to work, but it does not "continue" the CNMI alien status. No such status now exists. There can be no CNMI administration of such status.
The CNRA protects those who had such status on the transition effective date from removal for the period of time for which they were granted lawful admission by the CNMI prior to the effective date of the CNRA. If they were authorized to work on the transition effective date, they shall be considered authorized "by the Secretary of Homeland Security" to be employed until "the expiration of the alien's employment authorization under the immigration laws of the Commonwealth" or 11/27/2011, whichever is earlier. Everything is determined at the transition effective date. No where in the CNRA does it say that the CNMI can retroactively change the period of time for which aliens were granted admission or authorized to work.
The CNMI argues that aliens with umbrella permits might not have been able to stay for the full two years if they didn't comply with certain CNMI labor requirements; so the CNMI should continue to be allowed to enforce those requirements.
The CNRA does not say this. It does not suggest this. The clarity of the "transition effective date" as the date upon which rights and privileges are determined contradicts this interpretation. Furthermore, the CNRA expressly gives the US control over the transitional worker program, making it clear that it is the US that is to administer labor and immigration issues during the transition, not the CNMI. It would conflict with the CNRA's transitional worker program administered by the US to allow the CNMI to continue to administer its own alien worker program during the transition. Even more clearly, the CNRA expressly states that the Secretary of Homeland Security is deemed to have authorized employement for those present and authorized by the CNMI on the transition program effective date; how can the CNMI now revoke the Secretary of Homeland Security's authorization to work?
PRE-EMPTION
The CNMI Attorney General's Opinion does a good job of laying out the basics of pre-emption. Quoting from the opinion, in part...
" "Where a state statue conflicts with, or frustrates, federal law, the former must give way." U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl.2; Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 u.s. 726, 746 ...(1981). ... Evidence of pre-emptive purpose is sought in the text and structure of the statute at issue...
"A federal statute's express preemption clause indicates Congress' purpose....However, "[t]he fact that an express definition of the pre-emptive reach of a statue "implies-i.e. supports a reasonable inference-that Congress did not intend to pre-empt other matters does not mean that the express clause entirely forecloses any possibility of implied pre-emption."
...Implied preemption may occur via field preemption of conflict preemption.
Field prempetion may be found when states regulate a subject area that federal law also regulates...
Conflict preemption may be found when state statutes conflict with federal statutes.
State statutes regulating aliens may be constitutionally permissible. "Power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power. But the Court has never held that every state enactment which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se pre-empted by this constitutional power, whether latent or exercised."...
All of this is accurate and helpful.
It also helps clarify why the CNMI's interpretation of the CNRA is twisted and illogical.
The CNRA deals with immigration. The US federal court, in the challenge by the Fitial administration, clearly recognized that the alien labor portions of the CNRA are immigration matters. Employment authorization is a condition of admission and working without it may lead to removal; these are directly within the zone of the statute's pre-emption--admission and removal.
This law preempts the CNMI's attempt to regulate alien labor, both by field pre-emption and conflict pre-emption.
The CNMI wants to do something different than what the US is doing in the very field that the CNRA deals with--alien labor. The US transition program for alien labor clearly puts this power with the US government. The Secretary of Homeland Security is deemed to have authorized the employment of aliens as of the effective date of the transition period (11/28/2009). The CNMI can't reovke the Secretary of Homeland Security's authorization for employment. It can't pass laws now that effect status of any alien or add burdens not contemplated by Congress.
The real shame in all of this is the harm caused by the CNMI's unwillingness to be fair and rational in the transition to US immigration. Its refusal to turn over data, the verbal attacks on US officials, the waste of limited CNMI resources by litigating and continuing to press untenable positions is all very seriously harmful. And for alien workers and employers caught in the midst of this kerfuffle, the harm is not just lost wages and lost profits, but also stress and worry and uncertainty.
EDIT: For another take on this power struggle, see the Saipan Tribune column by Maya Kara and Bruce Mailman.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Alien Registration
The Federal Ombudsman's Office is conducting an "alien registration."
Why? The purpose of the registration is to get numbers and information about aliens here, so the U.S. Department of Interior can report to the U.S. Congress as required by P.L. 110-229 (the Consolidated Natural Resources Act).
Who counts? The registration counts all people who do not have a U.S. passport or a U.S. permanent residency card, and couldn't get one by applying--including citizens of the freely associated states--Palau, FSM, and the Marshall Islands.
How? There is a simple form.
All non-U.S. citizens fill one out, and turn it in to the Ombudsman's Office (Suite 203, Marina Heights II, Puerto Rico, Saipan). When you turn it in, you need photo identification (passport or other similar document).
When? NOW!!! Data is being gathered between December 14 and December 30, 2009. The time is short.
For more information, call the Ombudsman's Office at 322-8030.
If you want legal advice about your individual situation, talk to a lawyer.
Why? The purpose of the registration is to get numbers and information about aliens here, so the U.S. Department of Interior can report to the U.S. Congress as required by P.L. 110-229 (the Consolidated Natural Resources Act).
Who counts? The registration counts all people who do not have a U.S. passport or a U.S. permanent residency card, and couldn't get one by applying--including citizens of the freely associated states--Palau, FSM, and the Marshall Islands.
How? There is a simple form.
All non-U.S. citizens fill one out, and turn it in to the Ombudsman's Office (Suite 203, Marina Heights II, Puerto Rico, Saipan). When you turn it in, you need photo identification (passport or other similar document).
When? NOW!!! Data is being gathered between December 14 and December 30, 2009. The time is short.
For more information, call the Ombudsman's Office at 322-8030.
If you want legal advice about your individual situation, talk to a lawyer.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Foreign Students in CNMI Schools
Recently, I have been hearing from various people who report a campaign of misinformation relating to the rights of foreign students in the public schools.
I have no idea whether there are rumors floating about or whether the concern is justified. However, it's always a good idea to know what the law is and what rights people have.
So this blog post is about the rights of foreign students to attend the CNMI public schools.
A mix of foreign and citizen students and teachers from the CNMI.
The basic rule is fairly simple: States (and territories, including the CNMI) cannot discriminate on the basis of immigration status in providing free, appropriate, public education for children. Basically, children have a right to such education. As applied here, any and all children (ages 6 to 16) in the CNMI are entitled to attend public schools.
The leading court case on the subject comes from the United States Supreme Court. Plyler vs. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) held that even undocumented alien children were entitled to attend public schools and a Texas law that allowed otherwise was unconstitutional.
Justice Powell, in his concurring opinion, summarized the basic logic of the decision:
The decision held the day with a slim majority of five to four. But it has not been overturned. It is still the law.
Public schools do not police immigration. Immigration is a matter for concern for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service), not for the CNMI Public School System.
Nor will public schools be reporting the immigration status of its students to the federal authorities. Student records are, for nearly all purposes, confidential. In most instances, the PSS should not even have the information about a student's immigration status.
Plyler vs. Doe created issues that are still being discussed, as shown in this 2007 University of Berkeley seminar. Issues about what happens to undocumented students after graduation; issues about English-proficiency classes; and continuing debate about the use of resources for non-citizens.
One interesting aspect of the debate is a finding that the percentage of illegal alien children in public schools today is about the same as it was when Plyler vs. Doe was decided. Another is the finding that the majority of teachers and administrators do not want to be concerned about a student's immigration status. Both of these findings (from the Berkeley seminar) support the continuing viability of Plyler vs. Doe.
And the courts continue to uphold the impact of Plyler vs. Doe. See, e.g. League of United Latin American Citizens vs. Wilson, 908 F. Supp. 755, 774, 785-786 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
Plyler vs. Doe was determined on the basis of the U.S. equal protection clause. That law applies in the CNMI. So foreign students, whether temporarily present with legal status, or residing indefinitely/permanently here with or without documented status, are entitled to free, appropriate, public education in the CNMI elementary, middle/junior, and high schools.
Undoubtedly as the U.S. continues to consider issues of immigration reform, the on-going vitality of Plyler vs. Doe will be considered; it highlights some of the core issues around immigration.
The change of CNMI's immigration from CNMI control to U.S. control does not change the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution; it does not change the rights of a foreign child to a free public education.
I have no idea whether there are rumors floating about or whether the concern is justified. However, it's always a good idea to know what the law is and what rights people have.
So this blog post is about the rights of foreign students to attend the CNMI public schools.
A mix of foreign and citizen students and teachers from the CNMI.
The basic rule is fairly simple: States (and territories, including the CNMI) cannot discriminate on the basis of immigration status in providing free, appropriate, public education for children. Basically, children have a right to such education. As applied here, any and all children (ages 6 to 16) in the CNMI are entitled to attend public schools.
The leading court case on the subject comes from the United States Supreme Court. Plyler vs. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) held that even undocumented alien children were entitled to attend public schools and a Texas law that allowed otherwise was unconstitutional.
Justice Powell, in his concurring opinion, summarized the basic logic of the decision:
"...the interests relied upon by the State would seem to be insubstantial in view of the consequences to the State itself of wholly uneducated persons living indefinitely within its borders. By contrast, access to the public schools is made available to the children of lawful residents without regard to the temporary [457 U.S. 202, 240] nature of their residency in the particular Texas school district. The Court of Appeals and the District Courts that addressed these cases concluded that the classification could not satisfy even the bare requirements of rationality. "
The decision held the day with a slim majority of five to four. But it has not been overturned. It is still the law.
Public schools do not police immigration. Immigration is a matter for concern for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service), not for the CNMI Public School System.
Nor will public schools be reporting the immigration status of its students to the federal authorities. Student records are, for nearly all purposes, confidential. In most instances, the PSS should not even have the information about a student's immigration status.
Plyler vs. Doe created issues that are still being discussed, as shown in this 2007 University of Berkeley seminar. Issues about what happens to undocumented students after graduation; issues about English-proficiency classes; and continuing debate about the use of resources for non-citizens.
One interesting aspect of the debate is a finding that the percentage of illegal alien children in public schools today is about the same as it was when Plyler vs. Doe was decided. Another is the finding that the majority of teachers and administrators do not want to be concerned about a student's immigration status. Both of these findings (from the Berkeley seminar) support the continuing viability of Plyler vs. Doe.
And the courts continue to uphold the impact of Plyler vs. Doe. See, e.g. League of United Latin American Citizens vs. Wilson, 908 F. Supp. 755, 774, 785-786 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
Plyler vs. Doe was determined on the basis of the U.S. equal protection clause. That law applies in the CNMI. So foreign students, whether temporarily present with legal status, or residing indefinitely/permanently here with or without documented status, are entitled to free, appropriate, public education in the CNMI elementary, middle/junior, and high schools.
Undoubtedly as the U.S. continues to consider issues of immigration reform, the on-going vitality of Plyler vs. Doe will be considered; it highlights some of the core issues around immigration.
The change of CNMI's immigration from CNMI control to U.S. control does not change the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution; it does not change the rights of a foreign child to a free public education.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
CNMI Investor Permit
This has little to do with our usual MLSC clients, but it is the latest news in the federalization of our CNMI immigration, so I'm posting this communique from USCIS:
USCIS Update Sept. 11, 2009
USCIS PROPOSES INVESTOR PROGRAM FOR THE CNMI
Proposal Provides Status for Eligible Long-Term Investors in the CNMI During Transition Period
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will publish a proposed rule in the Sept. 14, 2009 Federal Register that would recognize a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) specific nonimmigrant investor visa classification. This “E-2 CNMI Investor” status is one of several CNMI specific provisions contained in the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), which extends most provisions of federal U.S. immigration law to the CNMI.
These temporary provisions are proposed to provide for an orderly transition from the current CNMI permit system to the immigration laws of the U.S., to lessen potential effects on the CNMI economy, and to give foreign long-term investors time to identify and obtain appropriate U.S. immigrant or nonimmigrant status. The transition period will begin Nov. 28, 2009 and end on Dec. 31, 2014.
This proposed special status of E-2 investors would allow eligible CNMI investors to remain in the CNMI for the duration of the transition period under E-2 CNMI Investor status, and to exit and enter the CNMI with valid E-2 CNMI Investor visas. It is proposed that the E-2 CNMI Investor Visa be issued for two years and be renewable. Derivative visas would be available for spouses and children of the primary applicant.
In line with CNRA, this proposed classification includes “long-term investors”—so only those CNMI investor permits that mandated a fixed minimum threshold amount of investment and are renewable over a period of multiple years would be considered to be “long-term investor” statuses: the Long-Term Business Investor, the Foreign Investor, and the Retiree Investor. Other CNMI investor permits, including the 2-year non-renewable retiree investor program for Japanese and those with short- or regular-term business entry permits, may be eligible to apply for existing nonimmigrant classifications under the INA, such as B-1/B-2 visas.
USCIS proposes that, to be eligible, investors must have been admitted to the CNMI in long-term investor status under CNMI immigration law before the transition program effective date; have continuously maintained residence in the CNMI under long-term investor status; currently maintain the investment(s) that formed the basis for the CNMI long-term investor status; and are otherwise admissible to the United States under the INA.
USCIS proposes using existing Form I-129 (Petitioner for a Nonimmigrant Worker) with Supplement E, for requesting E-2 CNMI Investor status. The current processing fee is $320 plus an $80 biometrics fee.
USCIS encourages the public to submit comments on this proposal by Oct. 14, 2009. All submissions must include “USCIS” and “DHS Docket No. USCIS-2008-0035” and can be submitted in one of the following ways:
• Internet - at the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: regulations.gov;
• E-mail to USCIS at rfs.regs@dhs.gov and include “DHS Docket No. USCIS- 2008-0035” in subject line; or
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier - Paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions to: Chief, Regulatory Management Division, DHS-USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 3008, Washington, D.C. 20529. Reference “DHS Docket No. USCIS-2008-0035” on the correspondence. Contact telephone number is (202) 272-8377.
-USCIS-
USCIS Update Sept. 11, 2009
USCIS PROPOSES INVESTOR PROGRAM FOR THE CNMI
Proposal Provides Status for Eligible Long-Term Investors in the CNMI During Transition Period
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will publish a proposed rule in the Sept. 14, 2009 Federal Register that would recognize a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) specific nonimmigrant investor visa classification. This “E-2 CNMI Investor” status is one of several CNMI specific provisions contained in the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), which extends most provisions of federal U.S. immigration law to the CNMI.
These temporary provisions are proposed to provide for an orderly transition from the current CNMI permit system to the immigration laws of the U.S., to lessen potential effects on the CNMI economy, and to give foreign long-term investors time to identify and obtain appropriate U.S. immigrant or nonimmigrant status. The transition period will begin Nov. 28, 2009 and end on Dec. 31, 2014.
This proposed special status of E-2 investors would allow eligible CNMI investors to remain in the CNMI for the duration of the transition period under E-2 CNMI Investor status, and to exit and enter the CNMI with valid E-2 CNMI Investor visas. It is proposed that the E-2 CNMI Investor Visa be issued for two years and be renewable. Derivative visas would be available for spouses and children of the primary applicant.
In line with CNRA, this proposed classification includes “long-term investors”—so only those CNMI investor permits that mandated a fixed minimum threshold amount of investment and are renewable over a period of multiple years would be considered to be “long-term investor” statuses: the Long-Term Business Investor, the Foreign Investor, and the Retiree Investor. Other CNMI investor permits, including the 2-year non-renewable retiree investor program for Japanese and those with short- or regular-term business entry permits, may be eligible to apply for existing nonimmigrant classifications under the INA, such as B-1/B-2 visas.
USCIS proposes that, to be eligible, investors must have been admitted to the CNMI in long-term investor status under CNMI immigration law before the transition program effective date; have continuously maintained residence in the CNMI under long-term investor status; currently maintain the investment(s) that formed the basis for the CNMI long-term investor status; and are otherwise admissible to the United States under the INA.
USCIS proposes using existing Form I-129 (Petitioner for a Nonimmigrant Worker) with Supplement E, for requesting E-2 CNMI Investor status. The current processing fee is $320 plus an $80 biometrics fee.
USCIS encourages the public to submit comments on this proposal by Oct. 14, 2009. All submissions must include “USCIS” and “DHS Docket No. USCIS-2008-0035” and can be submitted in one of the following ways:
• Internet - at the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: regulations.gov;
• E-mail to USCIS at rfs.regs@dhs.gov and include “DHS Docket No. USCIS- 2008-0035” in subject line; or
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier - Paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions to: Chief, Regulatory Management Division, DHS-USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 3008, Washington, D.C. 20529. Reference “DHS Docket No. USCIS-2008-0035” on the correspondence. Contact telephone number is (202) 272-8377.
-USCIS-
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Family-Based Immigration Workshop
Karidat and MLSC co-sponsored a two-day workshop May 5 and May 6, 2009 about US immigration, focusing on "family-based" issues.
The Marianas Variety gave two reports on the training--one referencing the promise of DHS to promulgate two regulations under the CNRA related to federalizing CNMI's immigration, and one focusing more on the impact of change on families in the CNMI.
The level of attendance at the conference, the diversity of the participants, and the press coverage are all good indicators that there is great interest about the up-coming transition to federal immigration here.
Lauri Ogumoro of Karidat, and Juanette Sablan and Polly Anne Sablan of MLSC man the registration table.
Evangeline Abriel from Santa Clara University School of Law and Peggy Gleason from the Catholic Legal Immigration Network presented detailed information on US immigration law about immigrant and non-immigrant admissions for immediate relatives and other other family members, including immediate relative petitions, petitions under the preference/quota system, self-petitioning for victims of domestic violence, and visa procedures for victims of crime and human trafficking.
Peggy Gleason and Evangeline Abriel.
The workshop, hosted at PIC's Napu Room, included an e-file of information and a hard-copy folder with sample problems and a copy of the power point presentation.
Approximately 70 people attended, including attorneys, social workers, legislators, law enforcement officers, and interested members from the business and professional community.
Approximately 70 people attended, including attorneys, social workers, legislators, law enforcement officers, and interested members from the business and professional community.
On Tuesday, David Gulick from DHS also gave a short presentation specifically related to federalization of the CNMI's immigration.
David Gulick, DHS
The Marianas Variety gave two reports on the training--one referencing the promise of DHS to promulgate two regulations under the CNRA related to federalizing CNMI's immigration, and one focusing more on the impact of change on families in the CNMI.
The level of attendance at the conference, the diversity of the participants, and the press coverage are all good indicators that there is great interest about the up-coming transition to federal immigration here.
Attorneys Rob Torres and Mark Hanson goof off.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Federalization Delayed.
It’s official. Here is the 3/31/09 USCIS press release:
DHS DELAYS THE transition to full application of U.S. IMMIGRATION LAWS IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today announced the delayed transition to full application of the U.S. immigration provisions of Title VII of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA) until November 28, 2009. Title VII extends U.S. immigration laws to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) which currently administers its own immigration system.
Under the CNRA, the Secretary of DHS has the sole authority to delay the June 1, 2009, transition date to U.S. immigration law up to 180 days, after consultation with the secretaries of Labor, Interior and State, the attorney general, and the governor of the CNMI. The Secretary has determined based upon those consultations that it is advisable to exercise that authority fully.
As a result of the Secretary’s decision the existing CNMI immigration laws will continue to apply until November 28, 2009. Additionally, the implementation of Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) interim final rule establishing a joint Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program (VWP), that was scheduled to begin on June 1, 2009, also will be delayed until November 28, 2009 and the existing Guam VWP will continue to operate until that date. To effectuate this change CBP plans to issue a technical amendment to the Guam-CNMI interim final rule published on January 16, 2009.
This decision also delays the implementation of the exemption from the current statutorily imposed caps on the number of nonimmigrant H-1B and H-2B petitions granted yearly for employers filing H worker petitions in Guam.
Monday, March 23, 2009
USCIS to Conduct “Green Card” Interviews in Saipan.
Green card applicants may now have their interviews handled in the CNMI at the new Application Support Center in Saipan. Before, an applicant would need to fly to Guam for the interview. Now, both the interview and biometrics (fingerprinting and other ID gathering) can be done here. This will save many aliens the expense of two roundtrip tickets to Guam (one for the visa applicant and the other for the sponsor/petitioner). The savings are crucial, given the high filing fees and other expenses, such as the medical exam.
Some of our clients who have had green card applications pending for quite a while are now having their interviews rescheduled from Guam to Saipan. I have not tried to schedule an appointment online yet, but apparently this is possible. Here is the official press release from USCIS for more details:
Some of our clients who have had green card applications pending for quite a while are now having their interviews rescheduled from Guam to Saipan. I have not tried to schedule an appointment online yet, but apparently this is possible. Here is the official press release from USCIS for more details:
USCIS to Conduct “Green Card” Interviews in Saipan
CNMI Customers Will Save Time and Money
SAIPAN, CNMI —U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today it will begin conducting "green card" interviews on March 23 at its new Application Support Center (ASC) in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI) .
Applicants from Tinian, Rota and Saipan seeking U.S. Lawful Permanent Residence or "green cards" will be now be scheduled for interviews at USCIS' new facility in Garapan.
“We are very pleased that legal counsel gave us the go-ahead to provide this essential service to our CNMI customers,” said USCIS District Director David Gulick, who is based in Honolulu. "It makes sense for us to do as much as we can to serve the community through this local office. Now customers will save the time, effort and expense of traveling to Guam for their interviews.”
In addition to the traditional ASC biometric services such as fingerprinting, the Saipan office already offers expanded services including general immigration information and naturalization interviews. Now “green card” interviews will be added to those services.
Customers interested in speaking to an Immigration Services Officer should make an “InfoPass” appointment online at www.uscis.gov. Customers with appointments will receive priority.
People can call the toll-free USCIS customer service line at (800) 375-5283. In addition, the most current information about federal immigration in relation to the CNMI can be accessed via the USCIS Press Room at www.uscis.gov.
USCIS is the agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that provides immigration benefits.
Currently U.S. immigration law only applies to immediate relatives of U.S. Citizens as defined within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). U.S. immigration law in general will be applied to the CNMI, with the Transition Period currently scheduled to begin on June 1, 2009.
Friday, January 30, 2009
What's Happening Again? Federalization and Aliens Living in the CNMI.
Part II
This year, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) will be replacing all CNMI laws and regulations that govern the admission and removal of aliens (except for local laws governing asylum protection, which will last through the transition period). As of now, the switchover is slated for June 1 but can be delayed for up to 180 days.
For aliens living in the CNMI solely based on a CNMI immigration permit, such status will end on the switchover date. Enforcement of the INA in the CNMI will be exclusively handled by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
In my last post, I used a recently-issued CNMI Immigration public service announcement as a departure point to outline the near-term effects of the switchover on aliens living here. I’ll now flesh out the outline a bit further, again based on the provisions under Pub. L. 110-229, Title VII, Sections 701 and 702.
Prohibition Against Removal from the CNMI
Aliens lawfully present in the CNMI solely on account of their CNMI status will be considered undocumented aliens beginning June 1 because, technically speaking, they have never been properly admitted into the U.S. This would seem a bit strange and unfair, as if the rug were being pulled from under their feet. Congress perhaps felt that way too and so expressly prohibited DHS from deporting them for the time being. In effect, DHS will honor valid CNMI permits for those aliens present here, at least until the permit expires or after 2 years passes from the effective date of the law, whichever happens first. This does not seem like much time but, at the very least, aliens who were legally present prior to the switchover date will not face an immediate threat of deportation. The window of protection may also provide additional time for these aliens to segue to the CNMI-only worker transition program or apply for the usual federal immigration opportunities (e.g., H visas) if they are eligible.
The Necessary Bureaucracy
The law provides for a registration system for aliens who formerly had CNMI status. This bureaucracy has not been set up yet. Presumably, the system will come with its own set of protocols, policies, forms, permits, procedures, etc., that will be used to track alien presence and provide some form of proof of lawful presence.
Segueing to the Segue
We’re all waiting with bated breath for the regulations that will define the transition program, especially with respect to who may qualify as a nonimmigrant worker under the program. Some aspects of the program are spelled out in the law. The transition period lasts through 2014 but may be extended indefinitely by the U.S. Dept. of Labor in increments of up to 5 years. Unlike the CNMI guest worker program, workers under the transition program will not have their status tied to one employer. The program, however, does not provide for admission to the rest of the United States.
The purpose of the program is also clear: to wean the CNMI from its guest worker program in a way that minimizes the inevitable economic disruption. Foreign workers not otherwise eligible for a federal visa or green card are expressly targeted under Pub. L. 110-229 for the transition program.
It does not take much thought to see that the primary candidates to assist in addressing the CNMI’s near-term labor needs are those already legally present here. At the same time, the federalization law is a solid reproach against the CNMI's self-imposed dependence on aliens from developing countries for its labor supply. We will see, hopefully very soon, how DHS will attempt to balance these concerns.
This year, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) will be replacing all CNMI laws and regulations that govern the admission and removal of aliens (except for local laws governing asylum protection, which will last through the transition period). As of now, the switchover is slated for June 1 but can be delayed for up to 180 days.
For aliens living in the CNMI solely based on a CNMI immigration permit, such status will end on the switchover date. Enforcement of the INA in the CNMI will be exclusively handled by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
In my last post, I used a recently-issued CNMI Immigration public service announcement as a departure point to outline the near-term effects of the switchover on aliens living here. I’ll now flesh out the outline a bit further, again based on the provisions under Pub. L. 110-229, Title VII, Sections 701 and 702.
Prohibition Against Removal from the CNMI
Aliens lawfully present in the CNMI solely on account of their CNMI status will be considered undocumented aliens beginning June 1 because, technically speaking, they have never been properly admitted into the U.S. This would seem a bit strange and unfair, as if the rug were being pulled from under their feet. Congress perhaps felt that way too and so expressly prohibited DHS from deporting them for the time being. In effect, DHS will honor valid CNMI permits for those aliens present here, at least until the permit expires or after 2 years passes from the effective date of the law, whichever happens first. This does not seem like much time but, at the very least, aliens who were legally present prior to the switchover date will not face an immediate threat of deportation. The window of protection may also provide additional time for these aliens to segue to the CNMI-only worker transition program or apply for the usual federal immigration opportunities (e.g., H visas) if they are eligible.
The Necessary Bureaucracy
The law provides for a registration system for aliens who formerly had CNMI status. This bureaucracy has not been set up yet. Presumably, the system will come with its own set of protocols, policies, forms, permits, procedures, etc., that will be used to track alien presence and provide some form of proof of lawful presence.
Segueing to the Segue
We’re all waiting with bated breath for the regulations that will define the transition program, especially with respect to who may qualify as a nonimmigrant worker under the program. Some aspects of the program are spelled out in the law. The transition period lasts through 2014 but may be extended indefinitely by the U.S. Dept. of Labor in increments of up to 5 years. Unlike the CNMI guest worker program, workers under the transition program will not have their status tied to one employer. The program, however, does not provide for admission to the rest of the United States.
The purpose of the program is also clear: to wean the CNMI from its guest worker program in a way that minimizes the inevitable economic disruption. Foreign workers not otherwise eligible for a federal visa or green card are expressly targeted under Pub. L. 110-229 for the transition program.
It does not take much thought to see that the primary candidates to assist in addressing the CNMI’s near-term labor needs are those already legally present here. At the same time, the federalization law is a solid reproach against the CNMI's self-imposed dependence on aliens from developing countries for its labor supply. We will see, hopefully very soon, how DHS will attempt to balance these concerns.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
What’s Happening Again? Federalization and Aliens Living in the CNMI.
Part I
Some confusion seems to be swirling around a recent CNMI Immigration public service announcement regarding documentation and status when June 1 arrives. Let’s first turn to the main source. The Jan. 20 PSA states that aliens will lose CNMI status if outside the CNMI after June 1. The PSA goes on to explain that CNMI-issued documents relating to admission or immigration status will not be recognized by the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) for purposes of entering the CNMI. The PSA apparently was based on DHS advice.
These pronouncements appear consistent with Public Law 110-229. When federalization goes into effect on June 1 (with a possible delay of up to 180 days), the Immigration and Nationality Act will replace CNMI immigration law (except for those relating to asylum protection, which will continue through the transition period). All local laws and regulations on the admission of aliens will end, and with it, any benefits or status conferred by those laws. For those aliens traveling outside the CNMI during the switchover date, CNMI-issued documents that would normally provide for admission to the CNMI will not be honored by DHS.
Therefore, in one sense, the PSA is inaccurate, because CNMI-conferred immigration status will end, wherever you are.
Of course, that’s not the end of the inquiry. What else will happen in the wake of the switchover that will affect the tens of thousands of aliens living here? Here’s a summary of what we know, which is taken from the only source of law on the matter, which is Section 702 of Pub. L. 110-229 (see also the GAO report , which has been around for a while but is still an excellent source):
• Aliens lawfully present in the CNMI on June 1 will be allowed to remain here for the duration of their permit or 2 years, whichever is shorter.
• DHS will most likely set up a registration system to track their presence.
• For these aliens, they may apply for the standard suite of federal immigration benefits, such as an H visa or family-based green card.
• For aliens who aren’t eligible for federal immigration benefits, the CNMI-only worker transition program might provide an opportunity for these aliens to continue to live and work in the CNMI for the next several years.
The critical picture that seems to form from this is the repositioning of CNMI permit holders to the federal transition program. As opposed to what conclusions people may be drawing from the recent PSA, it’s this segue that I suspect will define the situation of the majority of aliens living here under a CNMI work permit, due to the difficulties in qualifying for a federal visa.
I’ll explain all of this in further detail in an upcoming post.
Some confusion seems to be swirling around a recent CNMI Immigration public service announcement regarding documentation and status when June 1 arrives. Let’s first turn to the main source. The Jan. 20 PSA states that aliens will lose CNMI status if outside the CNMI after June 1. The PSA goes on to explain that CNMI-issued documents relating to admission or immigration status will not be recognized by the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) for purposes of entering the CNMI. The PSA apparently was based on DHS advice.
These pronouncements appear consistent with Public Law 110-229. When federalization goes into effect on June 1 (with a possible delay of up to 180 days), the Immigration and Nationality Act will replace CNMI immigration law (except for those relating to asylum protection, which will continue through the transition period). All local laws and regulations on the admission of aliens will end, and with it, any benefits or status conferred by those laws. For those aliens traveling outside the CNMI during the switchover date, CNMI-issued documents that would normally provide for admission to the CNMI will not be honored by DHS.
Therefore, in one sense, the PSA is inaccurate, because CNMI-conferred immigration status will end, wherever you are.
Of course, that’s not the end of the inquiry. What else will happen in the wake of the switchover that will affect the tens of thousands of aliens living here? Here’s a summary of what we know, which is taken from the only source of law on the matter, which is Section 702 of Pub. L. 110-229 (see also the GAO report , which has been around for a while but is still an excellent source):
• Aliens lawfully present in the CNMI on June 1 will be allowed to remain here for the duration of their permit or 2 years, whichever is shorter.
• DHS will most likely set up a registration system to track their presence.
• For these aliens, they may apply for the standard suite of federal immigration benefits, such as an H visa or family-based green card.
• For aliens who aren’t eligible for federal immigration benefits, the CNMI-only worker transition program might provide an opportunity for these aliens to continue to live and work in the CNMI for the next several years.
The critical picture that seems to form from this is the repositioning of CNMI permit holders to the federal transition program. As opposed to what conclusions people may be drawing from the recent PSA, it’s this segue that I suspect will define the situation of the majority of aliens living here under a CNMI work permit, due to the difficulties in qualifying for a federal visa.
I’ll explain all of this in further detail in an upcoming post.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Commonwealth vs. United States, Case 1:08-cv-01572
In the news this week was a report that the CNMI Governor, on behalf of the CNMI, sued the United States of America to stop federalization of immigration here. The lawsuit was filed on Friday, September 12, 2008 and assigned to Judge Paul L. Friedman.
The lawsuit alleges that the new federalization law, P.L. 110-229, goes beyond implementing a federal system of immigration and instead imposes a federal labor scheme on the CNMI, in violation of several laws.
The first count alleges that P.L. 110-229 violates the right of the CNMI to local self-government of internal affairs, as guaranteed by the Covenant, section 102. The U.S. may not over-ride the CNMI's local self-government of internal affairs unless the CNMI consents. (Covenant, section 105). The complaint alleges that implementation of the new system interferes with the CNMI's regulation of internal labor and economic affairs, and will cause economic harm that violates the U.S.'s guarantee to assist the CNMI in becoming part of the American economic community and able to meet its financial responsibilities of self-government.
The second count alleges that P.L. 110-229 was enacted in violation of the U.S. Constitution because the CNMI had no vote in Congress. The complaint alleges that the CNMI had no ability to participate in the political process, and that this defective political process violates the constitutional limits placed on Congress to enact laws.
The complaint asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to enter a permanent injunction prohibiting implementation and enforcement of P.L. 110-229.
The Defendants include the U.S., Michael Chertoff (Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Elaine Chao (Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor), and the U.S. Department of Labor. Because the defendant are all U.S. government offices or agents, they have 60 days after the U.S. Attorney is served with the summons and complaint to file their answer.
It's always risky to predict what will happen in litigation. CNMI Senator Maria Pangelinan was reported as saying that a stipulated settlement / consent decree declaring parts of the law inapplicable in the CNMI could be entered into. However, the same article reports that a spokesman for the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resource believes the law will be upheld.
On the merits of the claim of the first count: it's difficult to see how "local self-government of internal affairs" can be stretched to encompass employment of foreign nationals. The extension of U.S. immigration here was expressly envisioned by the Covenant--and is expressly allowed. U.S. immigration, where ever it applies, effects the availability of foreign workers for certain job categories. It seems that the U.S., by extending U.S. immigration here, is specifically trying to bring the CNMI closer into the U.S. American economic community.
On the merits of the claim of the second count: the Covenant implicitly acknowledged that U.S. citizens living in the CNMI would not have a vote in U.S. Congressional elections. The Covenant designed our participation in the political processes of the U.S.: a resident representative; and 902 talks between governments. The claim that the political procedure used by the U.S. Congress to enact P.L. 110-229 violates the U.S. Constitution is really a claim that our Covenant violates the U.S. Constitution. This seems a very risky tact to take, but also one not likely to succeed.
Right now, P.L. 110-229 is scheduled to go into effect in the CNMI on June 1, 2009. The most likely effect of the lawsuit, unfortunately, will be a delay in the CNMI's cooperation with the U.S. in formulating regulations that must be in place in order for the law to be implemented on time. Undoubtedly, Governor Fitial will use this excuse to seek a delay in the start of federalization. The alternative, which even the U.S. doesn't want, would be the implementation of federalization without CNMI government input.
Although the complaint alleges that the federalization of immigration will cause uncertainty for our foreign investors and our populace in the CNMI, this lawsuit will only add to that uncertainty.
The lawsuit alleges that the new federalization law, P.L. 110-229, goes beyond implementing a federal system of immigration and instead imposes a federal labor scheme on the CNMI, in violation of several laws.
The first count alleges that P.L. 110-229 violates the right of the CNMI to local self-government of internal affairs, as guaranteed by the Covenant, section 102. The U.S. may not over-ride the CNMI's local self-government of internal affairs unless the CNMI consents. (Covenant, section 105). The complaint alleges that implementation of the new system interferes with the CNMI's regulation of internal labor and economic affairs, and will cause economic harm that violates the U.S.'s guarantee to assist the CNMI in becoming part of the American economic community and able to meet its financial responsibilities of self-government.
The second count alleges that P.L. 110-229 was enacted in violation of the U.S. Constitution because the CNMI had no vote in Congress. The complaint alleges that the CNMI had no ability to participate in the political process, and that this defective political process violates the constitutional limits placed on Congress to enact laws.
The complaint asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to enter a permanent injunction prohibiting implementation and enforcement of P.L. 110-229.
The Defendants include the U.S., Michael Chertoff (Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Elaine Chao (Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor), and the U.S. Department of Labor. Because the defendant are all U.S. government offices or agents, they have 60 days after the U.S. Attorney is served with the summons and complaint to file their answer.
It's always risky to predict what will happen in litigation. CNMI Senator Maria Pangelinan was reported as saying that a stipulated settlement / consent decree declaring parts of the law inapplicable in the CNMI could be entered into. However, the same article reports that a spokesman for the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resource believes the law will be upheld.
On the merits of the claim of the first count: it's difficult to see how "local self-government of internal affairs" can be stretched to encompass employment of foreign nationals. The extension of U.S. immigration here was expressly envisioned by the Covenant--and is expressly allowed. U.S. immigration, where ever it applies, effects the availability of foreign workers for certain job categories. It seems that the U.S., by extending U.S. immigration here, is specifically trying to bring the CNMI closer into the U.S. American economic community.
On the merits of the claim of the second count: the Covenant implicitly acknowledged that U.S. citizens living in the CNMI would not have a vote in U.S. Congressional elections. The Covenant designed our participation in the political processes of the U.S.: a resident representative; and 902 talks between governments. The claim that the political procedure used by the U.S. Congress to enact P.L. 110-229 violates the U.S. Constitution is really a claim that our Covenant violates the U.S. Constitution. This seems a very risky tact to take, but also one not likely to succeed.
Right now, P.L. 110-229 is scheduled to go into effect in the CNMI on June 1, 2009. The most likely effect of the lawsuit, unfortunately, will be a delay in the CNMI's cooperation with the U.S. in formulating regulations that must be in place in order for the law to be implemented on time. Undoubtedly, Governor Fitial will use this excuse to seek a delay in the start of federalization. The alternative, which even the U.S. doesn't want, would be the implementation of federalization without CNMI government input.
Although the complaint alleges that the federalization of immigration will cause uncertainty for our foreign investors and our populace in the CNMI, this lawsuit will only add to that uncertainty.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
18. Some questions about P.L. 110-229.
There are many unanswered questions about how P.L. 110-229 will affect various people in the CNMI.
Here are some that may apply to MLSC clients:
What will happen to alien spouses?
The CNMI IR card will provide legal status only until its renewal date. The U.S. citizen spouse will likely have to apply for U.S. green card /immediate relative status for the alien spouse.
The fees for these applications are stiff, including costs for health certifications, etc. The U.S. citizen spouse will need to promise to financially support the alien spouse for 10 years or until the alien becomes a U.S. citizen (which first occurs). If the U.S. citizen spouse does not have sufficient income to be a financial guarantor, another additional sponsor for financial support will be needed.
What will happen to an alien spouse getting divorced from her/his U.S. citizen spouse?
The CNMI immigration does not require U.S. citizen spouses to get U.S. green cards for their alien spouses. So alien spouses in the CNMI have not had any way to gain permanent residency when their U.S. citizen spouses did not get them green cards. Sometimes they haven't gotten green cards because the U.S. citizen spouse intentionally wanted to use the lack of permanent status as a means for control over the alien spouse. But sometimes, the married couple just couldn't afford the cost of the green card processing.
So now, in the CNMI, under current CNMI law, divorce means you lose your local "immediate relative" status.
This can be especially difficult for those who have been married for a long time and who have U.S. citizen children. A U.S. citizen spouse in the U.S. will almost always get a green card for his or her alien spouse because the alien spouse needs some legal status to reside in the U.S. In the CNMI, that "legal status" has been the less permanent, no-road-to-citizenship local immediate relative status for alien spouses.
So once the divorce is finalized, an alien spouse here will lose "local IR" status and be deportable. We are seeing spouses, after many years of marriage and children, in the process of divorce at this moment who appear to be unprotected by anything in P.L. 110-229.
What about widows and widowers here who were married to U.S. citizens?
At present, widows and widowers who were married to U.S. citizen spouses have been granted by the Commonwealth Superior Court recognition that they have a right to remain in the CNMI, that the death of the U.S. spouse does not extinguish their "immediate relative" status under CNMI law. The CNMI Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.
So on June 1, 2009, when U.S. immigration takes over, these widows and widowers will probably be considered legal, but their CNMI legal status will be extinguished on the transition date, and they will have no corresponding legal status under U.S. law. There is no clear category that they'll fit into under the new U.S. immigration system.
If they had been living in the U.S. during their marriage, the U.S. citizen-spouse would likely have applied for a green card for the alien spouse, as a means of providing legal residence in the U.S. And upon the U.S. citizen-spouse's death, the alien might have been entitled to continued permanent residence and eventual citizenship. Widows and widowers here were locked out of that protection by the CNMI IR status that did not provide for permanency. The Superior court decision tried to provide for what was lacking in the CNMI IR set-up, but there is nothing in the new federal law to address the issue.
What will happen to those with CNMI Permanent Residency?
In the late 1970's and early 1980's, the CNMI had a "permanent residency" law that allowed aliens to become permanent residents of the CNMI. Something like 200+ permits were issued under this law. When the law was repealed, these "permanent residents" retained their status.
On June 1, 2009, when U.S. immigration takes over, these "CNMI permanent residents" will be legal. It is unclear whether their status is extinguished by the U.S. law, or whether they are entitled to some more due process. At the very most, their situation will be problematic and they will have uncertain protection under U.S. law, and no clear category that they'll fit into under the new immigration system.
What protection will U.S. citizen minor children have for their alien parents?
Right now these U.S. citizen children are in jeopardy. They have a right to be here in the CNMI. But their parents don't, unless the parents have separate status. As the economy continues to plummet downward, these parents are not only losing the economic security of having a job, but with job loss these parents face deportation as no longer having a legal status. It's the kids who will suffer. They will either be left here with others to care for them--breaking up the family, or they'll move with their parents back to the parents' home country--suffering disruption and other problems.
Under U.S. law, which will apply as of June 1, 2009, they may be able, in some special hardship cases, to have the U.S. withhold deportation of their parents. This may be most helpful to children who are disabled and handicapped. [See, INA sec. 240 (A)(b)(1)(D)] In the meantime, there seems little protection under current CNMI law.
Note, once children reach the age of 21, they can petition their alien parents in for immediate relative/green card status, even now.
What protection will be given to alien workers who have lived and worked a long time in the CNMI?
We have a lot of aliens who have lived in the CNMI for five, ten, twenty, and more years. For those who have decades of employment behind them, but now find themselves without jobs in our dwindling economy, they're just missing the boat by a fraction of an inch. It seems unfair. If anyone should get status, it should be those who have worked and contributed to the CNMI for the longest time period, even if they've lost their most recent job in the economy.
Nothing in P.L. 110-229 addresses this concern immediately. It does provide for study of the possibility of providing permanent legal status to some.
What will happen to alien spouses of citizens from the Freely Associate States-FSM, Palau, Republic of the Marshall Islands?
Years ago, Judge Munson ruled in a case filed by V.K. Sawhney that the CNMI couldn't just start re-classifying these alien spouses as "aliens" when they are married to people who were former TT citizens with a full right to live here (especially for those who had legal status as spouses when the Covenant went into effect). So the CNMI continued to give them IR status.
Now they will face the same challenge as we transition from CNMI immigration to U.S. immigration, only against U.S. law.. They have marriages, children, lives in the CNMI. But they're married to FAS citizens who have the right to live here by virtue of the Compact of Free Association, but no known legal means for providing status to alien spouses.
Other gaps from the transition? Solutions?
From this short list of potential problems, it appears that we need additional U.S. laws to protect these vulnerable people from falling between the cracks of the two systems-the out-going CNMI immigration system, and the in-coming U.S. immigration system. We also need some sympathetic local action that does not push people out to create slots for others, but tries to help as many aliens currently in the CNMI as possible.
Undoubtedly there are other aliens with tricky situations. If you have a specific problem, feel free to post about it in the comments section. It may be useful to those who are working on these issues.
Here are some that may apply to MLSC clients:
What will happen to alien spouses?
The CNMI IR card will provide legal status only until its renewal date. The U.S. citizen spouse will likely have to apply for U.S. green card /immediate relative status for the alien spouse.
The fees for these applications are stiff, including costs for health certifications, etc. The U.S. citizen spouse will need to promise to financially support the alien spouse for 10 years or until the alien becomes a U.S. citizen (which first occurs). If the U.S. citizen spouse does not have sufficient income to be a financial guarantor, another additional sponsor for financial support will be needed.
What will happen to an alien spouse getting divorced from her/his U.S. citizen spouse?
The CNMI immigration does not require U.S. citizen spouses to get U.S. green cards for their alien spouses. So alien spouses in the CNMI have not had any way to gain permanent residency when their U.S. citizen spouses did not get them green cards. Sometimes they haven't gotten green cards because the U.S. citizen spouse intentionally wanted to use the lack of permanent status as a means for control over the alien spouse. But sometimes, the married couple just couldn't afford the cost of the green card processing.
So now, in the CNMI, under current CNMI law, divorce means you lose your local "immediate relative" status.
This can be especially difficult for those who have been married for a long time and who have U.S. citizen children. A U.S. citizen spouse in the U.S. will almost always get a green card for his or her alien spouse because the alien spouse needs some legal status to reside in the U.S. In the CNMI, that "legal status" has been the less permanent, no-road-to-citizenship local immediate relative status for alien spouses.
So once the divorce is finalized, an alien spouse here will lose "local IR" status and be deportable. We are seeing spouses, after many years of marriage and children, in the process of divorce at this moment who appear to be unprotected by anything in P.L. 110-229.
What about widows and widowers here who were married to U.S. citizens?
At present, widows and widowers who were married to U.S. citizen spouses have been granted by the Commonwealth Superior Court recognition that they have a right to remain in the CNMI, that the death of the U.S. spouse does not extinguish their "immediate relative" status under CNMI law. The CNMI Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.
So on June 1, 2009, when U.S. immigration takes over, these widows and widowers will probably be considered legal, but their CNMI legal status will be extinguished on the transition date, and they will have no corresponding legal status under U.S. law. There is no clear category that they'll fit into under the new U.S. immigration system.
If they had been living in the U.S. during their marriage, the U.S. citizen-spouse would likely have applied for a green card for the alien spouse, as a means of providing legal residence in the U.S. And upon the U.S. citizen-spouse's death, the alien might have been entitled to continued permanent residence and eventual citizenship. Widows and widowers here were locked out of that protection by the CNMI IR status that did not provide for permanency. The Superior court decision tried to provide for what was lacking in the CNMI IR set-up, but there is nothing in the new federal law to address the issue.
What will happen to those with CNMI Permanent Residency?
In the late 1970's and early 1980's, the CNMI had a "permanent residency" law that allowed aliens to become permanent residents of the CNMI. Something like 200+ permits were issued under this law. When the law was repealed, these "permanent residents" retained their status.
On June 1, 2009, when U.S. immigration takes over, these "CNMI permanent residents" will be legal. It is unclear whether their status is extinguished by the U.S. law, or whether they are entitled to some more due process. At the very most, their situation will be problematic and they will have uncertain protection under U.S. law, and no clear category that they'll fit into under the new immigration system.
What protection will U.S. citizen minor children have for their alien parents?
Right now these U.S. citizen children are in jeopardy. They have a right to be here in the CNMI. But their parents don't, unless the parents have separate status. As the economy continues to plummet downward, these parents are not only losing the economic security of having a job, but with job loss these parents face deportation as no longer having a legal status. It's the kids who will suffer. They will either be left here with others to care for them--breaking up the family, or they'll move with their parents back to the parents' home country--suffering disruption and other problems.
Under U.S. law, which will apply as of June 1, 2009, they may be able, in some special hardship cases, to have the U.S. withhold deportation of their parents. This may be most helpful to children who are disabled and handicapped. [See, INA sec. 240 (A)(b)(1)(D)] In the meantime, there seems little protection under current CNMI law.
Note, once children reach the age of 21, they can petition their alien parents in for immediate relative/green card status, even now.
What protection will be given to alien workers who have lived and worked a long time in the CNMI?
We have a lot of aliens who have lived in the CNMI for five, ten, twenty, and more years. For those who have decades of employment behind them, but now find themselves without jobs in our dwindling economy, they're just missing the boat by a fraction of an inch. It seems unfair. If anyone should get status, it should be those who have worked and contributed to the CNMI for the longest time period, even if they've lost their most recent job in the economy.
Nothing in P.L. 110-229 addresses this concern immediately. It does provide for study of the possibility of providing permanent legal status to some.
What will happen to alien spouses of citizens from the Freely Associate States-FSM, Palau, Republic of the Marshall Islands?
Years ago, Judge Munson ruled in a case filed by V.K. Sawhney that the CNMI couldn't just start re-classifying these alien spouses as "aliens" when they are married to people who were former TT citizens with a full right to live here (especially for those who had legal status as spouses when the Covenant went into effect). So the CNMI continued to give them IR status.
Now they will face the same challenge as we transition from CNMI immigration to U.S. immigration, only against U.S. law.. They have marriages, children, lives in the CNMI. But they're married to FAS citizens who have the right to live here by virtue of the Compact of Free Association, but no known legal means for providing status to alien spouses.
Other gaps from the transition? Solutions?
From this short list of potential problems, it appears that we need additional U.S. laws to protect these vulnerable people from falling between the cracks of the two systems-the out-going CNMI immigration system, and the in-coming U.S. immigration system. We also need some sympathetic local action that does not push people out to create slots for others, but tries to help as many aliens currently in the CNMI as possible.
Undoubtedly there are other aliens with tricky situations. If you have a specific problem, feel free to post about it in the comments section. It may be useful to those who are working on these issues.
Monday, April 14, 2008
TWA's and Tax Season
Many foreign workers in the CNMI are concerned about preserving some legal status during the transition from CNMI-controlled immigration to the federalized, U.S. immigration system. No one is exactly sure how long the implementation of the U.S. immigration will take, but the plan does have delays built into it, and it takes time to write and adopt regulations.
In the meantime, more and more foreign workers are facing loss of status.
The following information is my understanding based on a conversation with private attorney Alexis Fallon. As noted in our sidebar, nothing in this column is intended to be legal advice. With that said, this might be worth checking out for those foreign workers who have lost or face losing their legal status before the full benefits of U.S. immigration are realized.
1. TWA's, that is temporary work authorizations, are available to those who have legitimate pending legal cases. A manufactured claim isn't going to work.
In the meantime, more and more foreign workers are facing loss of status.
2007 Unity March, photo by W. L. Doromal
The following information is my understanding based on a conversation with private attorney Alexis Fallon. As noted in our sidebar, nothing in this column is intended to be legal advice. With that said, this might be worth checking out for those foreign workers who have lost or face losing their legal status before the full benefits of U.S. immigration are realized.
1. TWA's, that is temporary work authorizations, are available to those who have legitimate pending legal cases. A manufactured claim isn't going to work.
But you may already be part of one of two on-going class actions, and thus eligible for a TWA, even if you have already lost employment or other basis for legal status. Both legal cases relate to taxes, the bane of most workers. This time, the tax system, and its problems, may help and give you foreign workers a right to a TWA.
2. Basically, in the CNMI we have chapter 2 tax (which is a local tax) and chapter 7 tax (which is our federal tax). We get rebates on chapter 2.
2. Basically, in the CNMI we have chapter 2 tax (which is a local tax) and chapter 7 tax (which is our federal tax). We get rebates on chapter 2.
Did you earn more than $5,800 in any year from about 2002 on? If the answer is yes, did you file a tax return? If yes, you should have gotten some rebate, even a small one. Did the CNMI pay it to you on time. If the answer to this last question is no (either you didn't get it, or you didn't get it on time), you are part of one of the class action cases pending in court right now. You may be eligible for a TWA.
3. In the CNMI, permanent residents and U.S. citizens pay FICA, which is tax for Social Security and Medicare. Foreign workers generally are exempt from FICA.
Did you have FICA (sometimes noted as social security or medicare) deducted from your check? If you did, you are part of a different class action case pending in court right now. You may be eligible for a TWA.
Did you have FICA (sometimes noted as social security or medicare) deducted from your check? If you did, you are part of a different class action case pending in court right now. You may be eligible for a TWA.
How do you claim the benefit of being part of these class actions? One way (not necessarily the only way) is to contact the attorney, Alexis Fallon, who is handling them. Even if you are part of the class, she charges $150 to help get the TWA.
The benefit of having a legal status as the CNMI transitions from local control to federal immigration is that you have a better chance of securing some long-term U.S. benefit (like residency). Right now, there are no guarantees and no permanent residency built into the law. But there is a requirement for a study during the transition. And hope.
As always, if you have questions about anything you read on this blog, or have legal issues of your own, consult an attorney.
The benefit of having a legal status as the CNMI transitions from local control to federal immigration is that you have a better chance of securing some long-term U.S. benefit (like residency). Right now, there are no guarantees and no permanent residency built into the law. But there is a requirement for a study during the transition. And hope.
As always, if you have questions about anything you read on this blog, or have legal issues of your own, consult an attorney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
