The price to defend America

The CNMI walks on shaky ground in a proposal to use solvency as basis to let in Freely Associated States migrants. Worse, the proposal throws the CNMI apart from the American political family.

For starters, some background. FAS refers to the Pacific island-nations that had signed an agreement with the U.S. military for use of lands in exchange for funds, immigration privileges and use of the dollar. The agreement — called Compact of Free Association — covers Palau; the Marshall Islands; and the Federated States of
Micronesia, which lumps Chuuk, Yap, Pohnpei and Kosrae. It permits citizens from these islands to enter, live and work in the U.S., including the CNMI, Guam and Hawaii.

The Compact sparks a wave of migration. Trying to stem the influx, Rep. Melvin O. Faisao drafts a bill that limits admission only to FAS citizens who are “gainfully employed.” An overload in the health, education and social welfare systems prompts the move, the bill explains. Obviously for cultural affinity and proximity, FAS citizens prefer to settle in the CNMI, Guam and Hawaii over the U.S. mainland. Before long, these hosts claimed being overwhelmed by migration costs; they had filed a lawsuit in which they said the federal government waffled over its obligation to compensate on so-called Compact negative impact.

In fairness, mass deportation is the least the bill will trigger. Most FAS citizens fare well in the definition of “gainful employment,” that is, a job of 40 hours a week, or an income at the level of the official poverty threshold. They’re in government and in private companies, including the garment factories. What the legislation surely does is shift the tide of migration elsewhere.

The CNMI stands as a unique case. Unlike Guam and Hawaii, it has control over immigration policy. So, it probably has every right to push ahead with regulating FAS migration, although whether that will consequently alter the substance of the Compact as it applies to the CNMI leaves room for debate. True, the CNMI was literally not a signatory to the Compact agreement. And neither were both Guam and Hawaii. But by signing on, the U.S. had effectively committed the CNMI, Guam and Hawaii and the rest of the American states to that agreement as the sovereign authority. It is, therefore, incongruous of the CNMI to now try to opt out on the flimsy reason of financial incapacity to go on.

The issue needs to be approached with some circumspect view. The Compact, for one, doesn’t single out a specific class of FAS citizens for immigration privileges. So until the Compact ceases to take hold, FAS citizens can count on being in a cut above all other non-Americans in the CNMI for whom the government holds no responsibility beyond public safety.

The U.S. government isn’t entirely faultless though for the rise of sentiment toward federal intervention. To begin with, it is on the premise of dereliction to Compact payments that drew the CNMI, Guam and Hawaii together and closer to rolling up the welcome mat for FAS citizens. But it is just as flawed to be taking stock on the simplistic view of having or not having the Compact funds. The CNMI, Guam and Hawaii know better than to argue that no federal development funds have flowed in, although they may not have been labeled as specifically for Compact-impact use.

Already, the court had ordered the federal government to draft a report on the costs of FAS migration. But, to be sure the issue is far from over.

Some terms of the Compact come due for renegotiation in October-November 2001. More than the litigation does, the renegotiation promises as a perfect venue for the parties to finally hammer out a solution. And with the renegotiation on the backdrop, the CNMI would be better off shelving any proposal in the nature of the bill.

Shoving it in might only lead to the discomfort of being cast as engendering a veiled plan to try to trick the federal government into coughing up.

Better yet, the CNMI, Guam and Hawaii could rest in the thought that they have contributed to the overall national defense and security without counting the costs.