Second thoughts on Article 12

In my column yesterday, I brought up the Article 12 issue. I raised it in the context of “American values,” as the term has been exploited to advance the cause of federalization in the CNMI.

Article 12, I pointed out, is fundamentally inconsistent with traditional American values. It is wholly incompatible with the principles of American government, where private property rights remain both sacred and indispensable components of liberty itself. Any attempt to impose Article 12-like land alienation legislation upon the United States, for example, would immediately be declared unconstitutional and would be dismissed entirely.

I then ended up pandering to local prejudices, in a regrettable attempt to woo indigenous sentiment against the proponents of federalization. If the feds federalize us on the basis of American values, I asked, what would then prevent them from eventually scrapping Article 12 on the same basis?

In other words, if the feds argue that anything contrary to American values will not be tolerated, then Article 12 should be immediately struck down. But it hasn’t. So obviously Article 12 was a special exception, granted in special recognition of the CNMI’s unique status and situation. The argument therefore becomes: If the feds can make a special exception in one case (land-alienation), why couldn’t it then make a similar exception in another area (immigration), for much the same reasons (to recognize the special, fragile political and economic needs of the CNMI’s indigenous people)?

Unfortunately, in making such an argument, I gave tacit endorsement to the perpetuation of Article 12, thereby violating a principle I am, philosophically, totally committed to: private property rights.

I therefore wish to apologize for pulling this stunt. I am sorry. In my eagerness to damn federalization, I was negligent. I was carelessly being inconsistent for political purposes. This hollow linkage ploy is something we should never indulge. Leave it to George Miller and the US Department of Interior to employ such irresponsible media tactics for their own questionable purposes. Please accept my sincerest apologies. I’ll try not to let it happen again.

In reality, I oppose Article 12. I regard it as a racist law enshrined in our constitution. Think about it. If the US government, for example, decided that only white Caucasians (or blacks, or fill in the race you prefer) could own land (or stocks, or fill in the asset), would that represent true justice? Would that be a reasonable proposition?

Article 12 is essentially no different. It’s not only un-American, it’s just plain wrong.

My friend Bill Stewart has been a CNMI resident longer than I have been alive. Yet he can’t own land–and I can. Why shouldn’t he be able to own property outright, if he can pay the full purchase price?

My friend William Hunter has lived in the CNMI for most of his life. The CNMI is his permanent home. William and I grew up together. We went to school together. His fiancee is an indigenous woman. Why shouldn’t my old friend be able to own land in his own name?

There are many long-time CNMI mainland Americans who should have every right to own their own homes outright, without fear of expiring land leases.

Article 12 requires property owners to be of at least 25 percent CNMI descent. What would happen if I married a mainland American woman, and my son married a Japanese woman, and his son married a German, and his son…must we be forced to marry indigenous people just to keep property in family hands?