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.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Federalization Delayed.
It’s official. Here is the 3/31/09 USCIS press release:
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.
Monday, March 2, 2009
32. Creditor and Debtor Issues in the CNMI
The Marianas Office continues to handle a large number of cases for debtors who face collection efforts from creditors. The statutory law regarding debt collection in the CNMI has had little change since the inception of the Commonwealth when it carried over much of the old law from the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
Unfortunately, much of this law is outmoded and archaic, and provides the thinnest of protections to debtors. While it isn't particularly helpful to creditors, it is very deleterious to poor people who owe money.
Prohibition on Imprisonment for Debt
More than 75% of the states in the US have written constitutional prohibitions on imprisonment for debt. This protection arose out of the 19th century abuses that imprisoned poor people when they couldn't pay the money they owed.
States that have this kind of provision generally do not allow civil contempt to be used as an enforcement mechanism for payment of debts. Civil contempt allows the court to jail those who willfully violate court orders; but a constitutional prohibition on imprisonment for debt has usually been read as making civil contempt an unavailable remedy to enforce debts.
The CNMI does NOT have any such constitutional prohibition. Our statutory law specifically allows the use of civil contempt for enforcement of debts.
Recently our CNMI Supreme Court recognized the right of indigents to court-appointed counsel before facing possible incarceration on civil contempt charges. (PFC vs. Muna, 2008 MP 21). This means the Superior Court will now have to use its limited resources to pay the price of attorneys when creditors try to enforce their judgments using civil contempt.
What the states use instead of civil contempt are better and more efficient creditor remedies that may in fact cost less to the state than the older remedy that involves putting poor people in jail to wring money from them (that they don't have) to pay their debts.
GARNISHMENT
States allow creditors to garnish wages to pay debts. Garnishment is a method by which money is taken directly from the employer before the wages are paid to the employee and redirected to the creditor--like voluntary allotments which are seen here, but involuntarily created by court order. Federal law has established a formula for determining the maximum amounts of garnishments so that debtors still have some protection of their wages so they can support their families. If an employer fails to pay over wages that were to be garnished, the employer becomes liable for the payment. And if a debtor-employee leaves employment (because he quits, is terminated, dies, gets sick, etc.) , typically the employer must notify the creditor.
In the CNMI, we do not have any garnishment statute for ordinary creditors. We finally have a wage-withholding statute that allows garnishment for child and spousal support. However, consumer and commercial creditors have no easy way to get paid directly.
What the CNMI uses instead to enforce payment on judgment debts is an "order in aid of judgment" (OIA) where the Court orders the turn-over by the judgment debtor to the creditor of payments, usually in installments that coincide with payday. The problems with this system are multiple--creditors must rely on debtors to actually turn over the payment, which they sometimes don't do. When a debtor owes a lot of money, the cumulative amount of child support and OIA payments can get excessive, taking a bigger chunk of salary than might be allowable under federal limits--and it usually takes a debtor's attorney to figure this out. When payments are missed, the creditor loses out completely and must return to court to enforce the order by way of contempt. There is often a lag time between non-compliance and the creditor's awareness--which hurts both creditor who must wait for the payment and debtor whose judgment accrues interest at the exorbitant rate of 9% per annum.
SECURED TRANSACTIONS
The CNMI, like the states, has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code. Creditors can take security interests in purchase-money goods that they then repossess if payment is not made. We see this here in the automobile sales industry, and of course, in homes and land subject to mortgages, and in bank transactions like loans, but not very often elsewhere.
In the states, secured transactions are also used most often in bank transactions--car sales, home mortgage contracts, loans, also--but occasionally in other large purchases. The difference I see here is how often poor people are willingly allowed to buy cars (especially by Triple J Motors) or get loans (Wells Fargo), when the buyers are so clearly non credit worthy.
CREDIT CHECKS
What we see here in the CNMI everywhere is the willingness of creditors to extend credit to anyone, without security, without establishing credit-worthiness.
This seems to have become something of a problem in the states as well recently, with the free and easy extension of credit through VISA and Mastercard accounts, for example, and some "creative" home-mortgage financing. But those instances often seem to be at a distance, through faceless encounters, while here, it is mom-and-pop stores extending credit to people in the neighborhood. Or local merchants taking personal checks without determining if the account is able to cover the amount.
When I last visited the states, I went into Amish country, where the people live without power in their homes. They are savvy businessmen, however--and although they often accepted my checks, they first got verification of funds on hand. This is not impossible.
And yet at the Marianas Office we continue to see people who are obviously poor, on food stamps, and unlikely to have any spare change, getting credit and bouncing checks for everything from utilities and telephone services, to food and drink, to appliances and more.
In other words, we see the improvident extension of credit all the time.
LOPSIDED LAWS
In enforcement proceedings, the Court nearly always acts as if the only person to blame for the non-payment is the debtor, and rarely takes a look at creditors who have been irresponsible in taking foolish risks in the name of business.
These cases take up a lot of court time, and a lot of MLSC's time.
Creditors get judgments that they enforce through contempt, and while that situation isn't very efficient it allows them to continue to pursue payment for decades from people who are very poor. It also allows them to add on interest at 9% per annum and fees for court costs and attorneys--all adding up against the poor debtor. In contrast to a 9% fixed post-judgment interest rate, states and federal courts often use a variable interest rate tied to the prime lending rate or some other federal consumer index, to set post-judgment interest.
Orders to seek and obtain work are another thing we see here in the CNMI as an enforcement mechanism for ordinary debt. No state uses this as a means to enforce payment on ordinary debts. It seems rather foolish that the Court would be ordering people to seek work in our current labor market--or lack thereof, and holding the threat of jail over the heads of debtors who give up in the face of our economy. But that is what is happening here. MLSC continues to argue in legal proceedings that these work orders violate the CNMI statutory law (OIA's that allow "method of payment"), the CNMI and US Constitutional protection of liberty; and the federal statutory and constitutional protection from involuntary servitude.
BANKRUPTCY
Debtors in the CNMI continue to have one quiver in their arsenal that helps protect them -- federal bankruptcy laws. The same laws that apply to the states apply here. The same hurdles must be met--creditor counseling, lots of schedules, detailed filings...
Bankruptcy is supposed to be a means of last resort to deal with mounting debt. People who are unemployed and have no assets or income to protect aren't the targeted audience for bankruptcy protection.
Unfortunately in the CNMI, they have little else that stands between them and a lifetime of creditor harassment and extremely punitive judgment enforcement.
Unfortunately, much of this law is outmoded and archaic, and provides the thinnest of protections to debtors. While it isn't particularly helpful to creditors, it is very deleterious to poor people who owe money.
Prohibition on Imprisonment for Debt
More than 75% of the states in the US have written constitutional prohibitions on imprisonment for debt. This protection arose out of the 19th century abuses that imprisoned poor people when they couldn't pay the money they owed.
States that have this kind of provision generally do not allow civil contempt to be used as an enforcement mechanism for payment of debts. Civil contempt allows the court to jail those who willfully violate court orders; but a constitutional prohibition on imprisonment for debt has usually been read as making civil contempt an unavailable remedy to enforce debts.
The CNMI does NOT have any such constitutional prohibition. Our statutory law specifically allows the use of civil contempt for enforcement of debts.
Recently our CNMI Supreme Court recognized the right of indigents to court-appointed counsel before facing possible incarceration on civil contempt charges. (PFC vs. Muna, 2008 MP 21). This means the Superior Court will now have to use its limited resources to pay the price of attorneys when creditors try to enforce their judgments using civil contempt.
What the states use instead of civil contempt are better and more efficient creditor remedies that may in fact cost less to the state than the older remedy that involves putting poor people in jail to wring money from them (that they don't have) to pay their debts.
GARNISHMENT
States allow creditors to garnish wages to pay debts. Garnishment is a method by which money is taken directly from the employer before the wages are paid to the employee and redirected to the creditor--like voluntary allotments which are seen here, but involuntarily created by court order. Federal law has established a formula for determining the maximum amounts of garnishments so that debtors still have some protection of their wages so they can support their families. If an employer fails to pay over wages that were to be garnished, the employer becomes liable for the payment. And if a debtor-employee leaves employment (because he quits, is terminated, dies, gets sick, etc.) , typically the employer must notify the creditor.
In the CNMI, we do not have any garnishment statute for ordinary creditors. We finally have a wage-withholding statute that allows garnishment for child and spousal support. However, consumer and commercial creditors have no easy way to get paid directly.
What the CNMI uses instead to enforce payment on judgment debts is an "order in aid of judgment" (OIA) where the Court orders the turn-over by the judgment debtor to the creditor of payments, usually in installments that coincide with payday. The problems with this system are multiple--creditors must rely on debtors to actually turn over the payment, which they sometimes don't do. When a debtor owes a lot of money, the cumulative amount of child support and OIA payments can get excessive, taking a bigger chunk of salary than might be allowable under federal limits--and it usually takes a debtor's attorney to figure this out. When payments are missed, the creditor loses out completely and must return to court to enforce the order by way of contempt. There is often a lag time between non-compliance and the creditor's awareness--which hurts both creditor who must wait for the payment and debtor whose judgment accrues interest at the exorbitant rate of 9% per annum.
SECURED TRANSACTIONS
The CNMI, like the states, has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code. Creditors can take security interests in purchase-money goods that they then repossess if payment is not made. We see this here in the automobile sales industry, and of course, in homes and land subject to mortgages, and in bank transactions like loans, but not very often elsewhere.
In the states, secured transactions are also used most often in bank transactions--car sales, home mortgage contracts, loans, also--but occasionally in other large purchases. The difference I see here is how often poor people are willingly allowed to buy cars (especially by Triple J Motors) or get loans (Wells Fargo), when the buyers are so clearly non credit worthy.
CREDIT CHECKS
What we see here in the CNMI everywhere is the willingness of creditors to extend credit to anyone, without security, without establishing credit-worthiness.
This seems to have become something of a problem in the states as well recently, with the free and easy extension of credit through VISA and Mastercard accounts, for example, and some "creative" home-mortgage financing. But those instances often seem to be at a distance, through faceless encounters, while here, it is mom-and-pop stores extending credit to people in the neighborhood. Or local merchants taking personal checks without determining if the account is able to cover the amount.
When I last visited the states, I went into Amish country, where the people live without power in their homes. They are savvy businessmen, however--and although they often accepted my checks, they first got verification of funds on hand. This is not impossible.
And yet at the Marianas Office we continue to see people who are obviously poor, on food stamps, and unlikely to have any spare change, getting credit and bouncing checks for everything from utilities and telephone services, to food and drink, to appliances and more.
In other words, we see the improvident extension of credit all the time.
LOPSIDED LAWS
In enforcement proceedings, the Court nearly always acts as if the only person to blame for the non-payment is the debtor, and rarely takes a look at creditors who have been irresponsible in taking foolish risks in the name of business.
These cases take up a lot of court time, and a lot of MLSC's time.
Creditors get judgments that they enforce through contempt, and while that situation isn't very efficient it allows them to continue to pursue payment for decades from people who are very poor. It also allows them to add on interest at 9% per annum and fees for court costs and attorneys--all adding up against the poor debtor. In contrast to a 9% fixed post-judgment interest rate, states and federal courts often use a variable interest rate tied to the prime lending rate or some other federal consumer index, to set post-judgment interest.
Orders to seek and obtain work are another thing we see here in the CNMI as an enforcement mechanism for ordinary debt. No state uses this as a means to enforce payment on ordinary debts. It seems rather foolish that the Court would be ordering people to seek work in our current labor market--or lack thereof, and holding the threat of jail over the heads of debtors who give up in the face of our economy. But that is what is happening here. MLSC continues to argue in legal proceedings that these work orders violate the CNMI statutory law (OIA's that allow "method of payment"), the CNMI and US Constitutional protection of liberty; and the federal statutory and constitutional protection from involuntary servitude.
BANKRUPTCY
Debtors in the CNMI continue to have one quiver in their arsenal that helps protect them -- federal bankruptcy laws. The same laws that apply to the states apply here. The same hurdles must be met--creditor counseling, lots of schedules, detailed filings...
Bankruptcy is supposed to be a means of last resort to deal with mounting debt. People who are unemployed and have no assets or income to protect aren't the targeted audience for bankruptcy protection.
Unfortunately in the CNMI, they have little else that stands between them and a lifetime of creditor harassment and extremely punitive judgment enforcement.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
About Impeachment
There have been reports in the Saipan newspapers about a call to impeach the Lieutenant Governor. In today's newspaper, there is a letter claiming that such action would be unconstitutional.
Here's the real deal.
Representative Tina Sablan, as a member of the CNMI Congress, is fully empowered and completely within her CNMI Constitutional duties and rights to call for impeachment of the Lieutenant Governor. The CNMI Legislature is fully empowered to consider and move on impeachment of the Lieutenant Governor.
The pertinent parts of the CNMI Constitution read as follows:
There is NOTHING in the CNMI Constitution or the U.S. Constitution that protects an elected official from facing impeachment proceedings and criminal charges simultaneously.
Unfortunately, the letter writer, Cristy Sablan of San Antonio, misinforms the public both as to "facts" and conclusions about the law.
The Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, was arrested on federal criminal charges for corruption. The Illinois Legislature panel that recommended impeachment did so based on the criminal charges, as well as other allegations of misconduct.
This is not an isolated example, either. In 2004, Oklahoma lawmakers voted on impeachment of the state Insurance Commissioner while he faced two trials on five felony charges.
As explained in this news article by journalist Patrick Butler:
The CNMI letter-writer confuses the presumption of innocence that is part of our criminal jurisprudence with the power of the Legislature to decide issues of job tenure. Being presumed innocent of criminal charges does not mean that you cannot face impeachment proceedings.
Certainly, if the CNMI Legislature decided to impeach the Lieutenant Governor, he would retain constitutional rights, including his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination and could not be made to testify or produce evidence against himself. But the CNMI Legislature does not need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt proving guilt of the specific felony charges presently pending. They can consider all evidence related to any of the categories upon which impeachment is founded.
The typical procedure used for impeachment: the House would appoint a panel to investigate and recommend--like a House sub-committee--on the impeachment; then the House votes on the recommendation--when they vote "for impeachment" they are really voting for a trial of the charges for impeachment to be held in the Senate; and if the House vote is for impeachment by 2/3rd majority, the matter goes to the Senate for the trial and vote on whether to "convict" on the impeachment--not on the criminal charges.
The effect of impeachment is to oust an elected official from his or her job. There are no jail terms or other criminal effects. There is no "lynch mob" or hanging of the Lieutenant Governor "from the highest tree."
So there is no problem "letting the judicial process run its course" and conducting impeachment proceedings at the same time. Ms. Cristy Sablan is wrong.
Here's the real deal.
Representative Tina Sablan, as a member of the CNMI Congress, is fully empowered and completely within her CNMI Constitutional duties and rights to call for impeachment of the Lieutenant Governor. The CNMI Legislature is fully empowered to consider and move on impeachment of the Lieutenant Governor.
The pertinent parts of the CNMI Constitution read as follows:
CNMI Constitution, Article III, Section 19: Impeachment. The governor and lieutenant governor are subject to impeachment as provided in article II, section 8, of this Constitution for treason, commission of a felony, corruption or neglect of duty.
CNMI Constitution, Article II, Section 8: Impeachment. The legislature may impeach those executive and judicial officers of the Commonwealth subject to impeachment under this Constitution. The house of representatives may initiate impeachment proceedings by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members and the senate may convict after hearing by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members.
Source: Original provision, unaltered (ratified 1977, effective 1978).
There is NOTHING in the CNMI Constitution or the U.S. Constitution that protects an elected official from facing impeachment proceedings and criminal charges simultaneously.
Unfortunately, the letter writer, Cristy Sablan of San Antonio, misinforms the public both as to "facts" and conclusions about the law.
The Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, was arrested on federal criminal charges for corruption. The Illinois Legislature panel that recommended impeachment did so based on the criminal charges, as well as other allegations of misconduct.
This is not an isolated example, either. In 2004, Oklahoma lawmakers voted on impeachment of the state Insurance Commissioner while he faced two trials on five felony charges.
As explained in this news article by journalist Patrick Butler:
While federal criminal charges are pending, one need not be guilty of a criminal offense to be impeached. Unfitness for office and ignoring the legislature in major decisions may be reason enough.
The CNMI letter-writer confuses the presumption of innocence that is part of our criminal jurisprudence with the power of the Legislature to decide issues of job tenure. Being presumed innocent of criminal charges does not mean that you cannot face impeachment proceedings.
Certainly, if the CNMI Legislature decided to impeach the Lieutenant Governor, he would retain constitutional rights, including his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination and could not be made to testify or produce evidence against himself. But the CNMI Legislature does not need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt proving guilt of the specific felony charges presently pending. They can consider all evidence related to any of the categories upon which impeachment is founded.
The typical procedure used for impeachment: the House would appoint a panel to investigate and recommend--like a House sub-committee--on the impeachment; then the House votes on the recommendation--when they vote "for impeachment" they are really voting for a trial of the charges for impeachment to be held in the Senate; and if the House vote is for impeachment by 2/3rd majority, the matter goes to the Senate for the trial and vote on whether to "convict" on the impeachment--not on the criminal charges.
The effect of impeachment is to oust an elected official from his or her job. There are no jail terms or other criminal effects. There is no "lynch mob" or hanging of the Lieutenant Governor "from the highest tree."
So there is no problem "letting the judicial process run its course" and conducting impeachment proceedings at the same time. Ms. Cristy Sablan is wrong.
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.
Now Is the Time-Passports and Birth Records
Our CNMI immigration is scheduled to be federalized effective June 1, 2009.
Now is a good time to take care of establishing your U.S. citizenship under the Covenant. I'll be posting about the requirements for each category of U.S. citizen listed in Covenant section 301 in another installment.
But here I just want to remind people that birth records are needed for passport applications. And those records can present new, unexpected problems.
If you were born in the CNMI, there's a fair chance that the name on your birth record is different than the name you're using! If you were born in Chuuk, the probability of this occuring is even greater. We see this problem all of the time--people using the names given on their baptismal records, when their official birth records have a very different name. People use names on school records and employment records, even on their marriage records, driver's licenses, and birth records of their children--using the name they've "always" used--only to find out when they get a copy of their birth certificate that they were given a different name at birth.
Birth records can be corrected or changed, but the process takes a little bit of time (from 1 to 3 months, on average). So NOW IS THE TIME to get a copy of your birth record. Check it out.
And if it has a different name than the name you're using, get legal help to correct the situation now.
Now is a good time to take care of establishing your U.S. citizenship under the Covenant. I'll be posting about the requirements for each category of U.S. citizen listed in Covenant section 301 in another installment.
But here I just want to remind people that birth records are needed for passport applications. And those records can present new, unexpected problems.
If you were born in the CNMI, there's a fair chance that the name on your birth record is different than the name you're using! If you were born in Chuuk, the probability of this occuring is even greater. We see this problem all of the time--people using the names given on their baptismal records, when their official birth records have a very different name. People use names on school records and employment records, even on their marriage records, driver's licenses, and birth records of their children--using the name they've "always" used--only to find out when they get a copy of their birth certificate that they were given a different name at birth.
Birth records can be corrected or changed, but the process takes a little bit of time (from 1 to 3 months, on average). So NOW IS THE TIME to get a copy of your birth record. Check it out.
And if it has a different name than the name you're using, get legal help to correct the situation now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
