A lot of gray areas in proposed Safe Haven Regulations

I write to explain my opposition to the promulgation of the Safe Haven Regulations at this time. While humanitarian efforts are admirable and should always be encouraged, I feel that the government should cease and desist from attempting to adopt the proposed regulations in their current form.

I have no objection to the concept of helping those who need it, but I am VERY troubled about a few things.

First is the sneaky way in which this is happening. Shamefully, this plan has been concealed from THE PEOPLE, as well as from their elected legislators. The Commonwealth has just gone through an election cycle. The citizens were energized, engaged and discussing politics and the CNMI’s future daily. If this plan, in its current form, was a good idea, it would have been trumpeted to the people during the election as a reason to vote for or against a candidate. That clearly did not happen.

In fact, as of this morning (Friday, Dec. 9), the proposed regulations were still not posted on the AG’s website, leaving us to wonder when the governor was going to inform those whom he was elected to represent that he would be entering into this poorly-planned mess.

Also, the conduct of the Attorney General in promulgating these regulations is suspect. She has recused herself from further participating in this scheme, after questions were raised by other people, due to ethical and legal issues concerning her involvement. This fact alone justifies stopping the implementation of the regulations, until such time as a criminal investigation may commence as well as any investigation by the Judiciary and/or the Bar Association. The Attorney General is charged with enforcing the laws; she should not break them in order to pass regulations. I demand this stops immediately.

Does anyone really believe her claims that she stopped her involvement with this scheme because she didn’t want to hassle with me? If you believe that, you’ll believe anything. My investigation has revealed that her own staff threatened to prosecute her if she didn’t stop her involvement.

Find out for yourself: file an open records request of the memo which highlights the laws and attorney ethics rules that were likely violated, or that would be violated if she continued with her scheme.

I know this memo exists; I have seen it; a copy was brought to my office. In fact, I am proud that my own investigation revealed almost as many violations of law as were revealed by the memo. I believe the Assistant Attorney Generals found four more violations of law than I did, but then again, they’re lawyers and that’s what they’re paid to do.

It will be interesting to see if they actually prosecute her. Perhaps the governor’s last act in office should be to pardon his AG for her actions, just in case.

Second are concerns about the vagueness of the proposed regulations. These regulations, no matter how well intentioned, lead to some very startling questions:

The regulations would permit refugees, without passports, or, for that matter, any identity documents whatsoever, to enter the CNMI. How are we to repatriate them without identity papers? Isn’t it difficult enough to deport an adult nonresident worker who has a valid passport? And we’re going to try and deport a passport-less child?

The regulations state that only refugees between the ages of 8 and 16 are eligible. How are you to ensure compliance with an age restriction when you do not require a birth certificate or passport?

Let me get this straight: The plan is to keep the refugees here for an indeterminate period of time, and then send them back to the very people who sold them into slavery in the first place? Has anyone thought this through? Or is that just a ruse and the real intent is to keep them here? Shouldn’t we be told this up front?

Also, has anyone asked the various agencies, for example the Department of Public Health, for input? The proposed regulations do not require that these refugees be medically screened prior to entering the CNMI. Is the CHC able to handle an increased number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases? How about the [Marianas] Visitors Authority? What will an outbreak of influenza or TB do to our tourist numbers? Has anyone asked?

Also, shouldn’t the regulations require the posting of a bond to ensure the refugees will leave without the CNMI having to pay for it? As drafted, the AG could require the posting of 1 cent as security. Shouldn’t we ensure that we won’t have to pay to send them home?

Why was no upper limit placed on the number of refugees who can avail of these regulations? Sure, you bring in 30 at a time, but then you transfer their status and bring in 30 more. When will it stop? What is the real upper limit?

What is clear is that these regulations are being hastily propagated without any reflection or forethought whatsoever. What is painfully obvious is that THE PEOPLE have not been given the opportunity to decide these, and other important issues, for themselves.

Most troubling is that I learned that the current plan, at least before the story broke in the papers, was to begin bringing the first wave of refugees into the CNMI on Dec. 18, 2005, by abusing the Visitor Entry Permit process. Clearly, this would be illegal, for the VEP process was designed only for aliens “seeking to enter the CNMI for tourism or business purposes.” Further, the VEP requires the alien to possess a valid passport.

Should we compound the probably illegal and unethical actions which have already occurred by paying an Assistant Attorney General to fly to Thailand to import refugees in violation of Commonwealth Law? Obviously not. There is no doubt about it; these regulations as published must not be adopted or implemented.

Perhaps we can have more of a positive impact by focusing on other issues. Our islands are in dire straits financially. Our students and teachers are crying for more funds. Our utilities are on the verge of insolvency. I was just informed that the U.S. government will be filing a lawsuit to take over CUC, and that our water and electricity rates will likely shoot through the roof soon if something isn’t done NOW, assuming it already isn’t too late. It’s not as if the government doesn’t have enough on its plate.

This is a difficult issue. I understand the plight of these refugees. Nobody has to tell me about Vietnam; I fought for my country there. What kind of Christian would I be if I turned my back on these girls? But, what kind of senator would I be if I turned my back on those who elected me to serve them?

I have NOT said that the Safe Haven Program should never be implemented. I spoke this morning with a constituent who wholeheartedly supported the program, though he had admitted he hadn’t read the proposed regulations. He offered suggestions that, if heeded, would certainly be more acceptable, like requiring rock-solid monetary support, identity documentation, lowering the upper age limit to ensure the likelihood of the program’s success and, of course, requiring medical screening prior to their arrival in Saipan.

These are all commonsense requirements that should have been built into the regulations from the very beginning; THE PEOPLE who aren’t in the government can see that.

This wise person also noted that the Commonwealth’s adoption laws would probably need tweaking if the true intent of the program is to be realized. Isn’t it sad when THE PEOPLE think more comprehensively about our problems than the government does?

This plan may be a great idea. Or, perhaps, we should focus our efforts elsewhere. I feel THE PEOPLE should decide; the decision should not be made for them by an outgoing administration cramming regulations down from on high. If we are going to start the Safe Haven Program, we should take our time and do it right, which means doing it thoroughly and legally. THE PEOPLE of the CNMI deserve nothing less.

Sen. Pete P. Reyes
Saipan