Who’s on Third?

I would like to respond to Danny Aquino Jr.’s “Second-Class Citizens” letter. There are many issues and sub-issues in his letter, but I always take notice whenever someone evokes the image of our forefathers making the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. I strongly support the belief that we should all be grateful for the service and sacrifice of those who have served, and continue to serve, in the defense of our nation and its ideals. I do not agree that it relates to the issue of immigration and citizenship in the way that Mr. Aquino suggests.

United States citizenship is, for most of us, an accident of birth. If you are born there (here) citizenship is automatic. You don’t have to serve your country to achieve it. In fact, very few citizens choose to serve. Those who do serve in the military protect what most have so easily obtained.

There is no question about the patriotism of the people of the CNMI. It long precedes the formation of the Commonwealth. The Marianas Scouts (Marines) fought and died in the Battle of Saipan long before the outcome was certain. The people of the Marianas have served America in almost every conflict since. The late Ben Seman, former Director of Police, and I served in Vietnam at the same time. We spoke of those days and he told me how he, and many others, had to go to Guam to enlist. Right now, hundreds of the islands’ sons and daughters are serving America so Mr. Aquino and I can write our letters.

To suggest that Dekada or any other group is not entitled to assert a claim for status because it was “our forefathers” who fought and died is very emotional and may actually sway some public sentiment. I would like to point out, however, that over the years many non-citizens served in the United States military. For example, on May 11, fifty-one sailors, soldiers and airmen from 26 nations were naturalized in military citizenship ceremonies. According to my research, since 2003 more than 12,000 military personnel have been sworn in as new citizens. More than 60,000 immigrants are now serving on active-duty with U.S. armed forces around the world. About half are non-citizens. In the Navy alone there are about 16,000 non-citizens with over 5,000 Filipinos among them. They are protecting us just as the U.S. citizen children of our nonresident workers will someday do.

Mr. Aquino complains about second-class citizenship. No voice in Congress? No voting for president? These were some of the choices made by the CNMI forefathers in order to achieve that highly desirable prize of U.S. citizenship while simultaneously holding control of labor, immigration and land alienation.

Clearly, the relationship has its pros and cons. The system, as it exists, can work but it takes effort and there are obvious sacrifices. Since we are part of America, change is possible. Do you want to be like Guam? Vote to give up labor, immigration and land alienation. If not, apply the effort to make our current system work.

Mr. Aquino states that the people of the Marianas were discriminated against by the Americans. Is this an argument in favor of discriminating against others? People often adopt this classic “us vs. them” attitude. We’ve got it and we don’t want to share it. Mr. Aquino argues that just because “they” have been here a long time doesn’t mean “they” are entitled to share what we have. It appears to be the “Second Class Citizens’” attempt to quash the “Third Class.”

Think carefully about what the CNMI has and how she got it. Were it not for long-term foreign labor, where would the CNMI be? Who built and maintains the infrastructure? Who provides for the tourists? Who keeps industry and business running? In the United States, duration of legal residency is an important factor in achieving citizenship. The concept of Permanent Residency in the CNMI is not new. In 1977, DL 5-11 provided that status for those who had lived in the CNMI for five years. It was repealed in 1981. Granting long-term nonresidents the right to remain might actually stimulate the economy. New businesses with profits reinvested locally and less overseas remittance are just a couple of possibilities.

Mr. Aquino offers figures regarding the voting records of those countries receiving U.S. aid. What is Mr. Aquino’s purpose in presenting these figures? To suggest that we aid only countries who agree with us? Should it “disgust” the people of the CNMI because they don’t get enough of the pie? The aid provided was for development and humanitarian programs. The United States government made a conscious effort to provide aid to countries as part of an overall plan to achieving the administration’s foreign policy objectives. The largest portion of the U.S. foreign aid budget, economic development assistance, goes to many countries that seldom support U.S. foreign policy initiatives. The list from which Mr. Aquino cites, http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1186.cfm, contains around 126 nations receiving aid from the U.S. None of these nations always voted with the United States. In fact, 74 percent (94 countries) voted against the United States more than half the time.

I don’t believe that our government is trying to buy votes at the U.N, but rather to influence the citizens of those nations by increasing their perception of the United States as a benefactor. These are clearly political decisions regarding humanitarian aid and while Mr. Aquino may criticize it neither he nor I are in a position to declare it unworthy.

Even allies disagree. Nations often find themselves at odds over issues that never enter their citizens’ consciousness. Disagreement within governments is also not uncommon. Do Stanley Torres and Pete Reyes vote against the majority more than 50 percent of the time? I’m not sure, but even if they did, would it mean they are disloyal to best interests of the CNMI? I don’t think so.

Barry Hirshbein
San Antonio