Out of the mouths of babes

The recent Saipan Chamber of Commerce meeting discussed land alienation, so I thought it appropriate to let the new generation weigh in with the great one.

A hundred Marianas High School U.S. history students discussed the issues surrounding our controversial land restrictions. The survey asked whether to eliminate Article 12, leave it unchanged, or modify our land laws. Students were asked to defend their vote and list what, if any modification they suggest. They were also asked to identify their NMD percentage and whether or not they are citizens that will be eligible to vote.

The results: 45 students voted to modify the law, 38 want it eliminated altogether, and 17 want to keep it the way it is now. The 17 defenders of Article 12 included eight students that are not NMD! Their rationale was surprisingly simple. One of the eight non-NMD defenders said, “If Article 12 is eliminated, home prices will rise, so if house prices go up, so will rents, and if our rents become $2,000 a month like Guam and Hawaii, we will be forced to move back to our country.”

Of the nine NMD students wanting to keep Article 12, none said “this is our island” and one articulated her sentiment, “Ending Article 12 will change Saipan by making us more like Guam, and I like Saipan the way it is now.”

The 38 students voting to eliminate were composed of 33 future voters, 29 of whom are NMD. Every student described this as an economic necessity now and in the future. One 50 percent NMD student said, “Ending Article 12 would help many needy people, and if I can’t make a living here, I will move when I graduate.” All six students identifying themselves as 25 percent NMD voted with this group because, barring a modification, their children could not own land. One NMD student commented, “Article 12 is a tribal mentality and communal land is generally not productive. We are Americans and one of our concerns is the large amount of non-productive land here, which eliminating Article 12 may reduce.”

Of the 45 wanting to modify, none wanted it extended to 75 or 99 years, and their reasoning only included an expanded version of who could own land. Half suggested including all U.S. citizens and others suggested including all people born here. One 100 percent NMD student stated, “We have people living in the U.S. mainland voting here, which is ridiculous. For the good of the CNMI, the people born here that are full-time residents, even if they are Korean, should own land and make decisions, because they are now the true taotao tano.” Most U.S. citizens that are not NMD voted with this group.

The level of interest in and knowledge of Article 12 was remarkable. I was asked many legal questions about the constitutionality or whether the law could stand the test of time, and I told them I am of the opinion it will not, but as a layman, I will turn legal interpretations over to our mock trial team.