Fitial poised to sue US govt

The Fitial administration is poised to sue the U.S. government over the Commonwealth’s new immigration law.

In a 10-minute television address last night, Gov. Benigno R. Fitial announced that he has hired a team of U.S.-based attorneys to review a draft complaint challenging the recently enacted immigration law for the Northern Marianas.

“Let me be clear. We do not question the authority of the Congress to apply the existing federal immigration laws that apply to every other part of the United States except American Samoa. We agreed to that in the Covenant. Our complaint focuses on the labor provisions of the legislation, which are not, and never have been part of the federal immigration laws,” the governor said.

Howard Willens, one of the governor’s legal counsels, drafted the complaint. Jenner & Block, a national law firm with offices in Chicago, New York and Washington, D.C., is reviewing the complaint.

Fitial said he will file the lawsuit unless the law firm tells him not to do so.

The governor said his decision to sue the U.S government came after consultation with different sectors of the local community, including the Legislature and the businesses.

Fitial had previously indicated that he might sue the U.S. government over immigration federalization.

[B]Prepared for federalization[/B]

Interviews with local leaders revealed a seeming lack of support for the governor’s chosen approach.

“The government has a right to pursue what he feels is right for Saipan,” said James Arenovski, president of the Saipan Chamber of Commerce. However, he added that the Chamber will continue efforts to prepare for the federal government’s plans to create new immigration regulations. “If ‘federalization’ happens, we want to be prepared.”

Like the administration, the business organization had previously opposed the passage of the immigration “federalization” bill at all cost.

Senate President Pete P. Reyes said that Willens did come to his office last week to discuss the lawsuit. In that meeting, Reyes expressed major concerns about suing the U.S. government. He said the CNMI government could not afford to get into an expensive lawsuit, or to put a strain on its relationship with the federal government.

“I’m just not convinced this [litigation] is a good idea,” he said.

[B]Three options[/B]

In his State of the Commonwealth Address last month, Fitial said there were three ways of dealing with the immigration law. They are: amendment, litigation, and negotiation.

Last night, the governor said he believes the next U.S. Congress will reconsider the CNMI immigration law. He said he hopes the concerned congressional committees will look at the legislation carefully.

He also said his administration is not opposed to negotiating with the U.S. government regarding implementation of the new law. However, he said, that certain provisions provide very little room for negotiation. One example, he said, is a provision that requires all foreign workers to be under the federal visa system by Dec. 31, 2014, or some later date if the Secretary of Labor grants an extension to the initial transition period. Under this provision, he said, only a tiny fraction of the CNMI’s 20,000 foreign workers will be able to remain in the Commonwealth.

[B]Damaging effects[/B]

Fitial said the damaging effects of the immigration law are starting to show. According to him, the cap on the level of foreign workers currently in effect has already made it difficult to get needed laborers for major construction projects on the islands. Potential foreign investors have withdrawn because they are unsure if they can get adequate workforce, he said.

“When I took my oath of office in January 2006, I promised to support and defend the Covenant and the applicable provisions of the U.S. Constitution. I believe that the action I am taking with respect to the federalization law is necessary in the interests of the Commonwealth and all of its residents,” he said.

[B]Futile?[/B]

Rep. Tina Sablan, a vocal supporter of the federalization measure, said that litigation “would be futile, not to mention a waste of dwindling taxpayer dollars.”

“Our energies would be better focused on improving our relationship with the federal government and working cooperatively with the federal agencies to develop immigration regulations that would be in the best interests of both the CNMI and the nation,” she said.

Sablan also said the administration’s continuing opposition to federalization could cost the CNMI a seat at the table during the promulgation of the new immigration regulations, as it had when the bill was being drafted.

“Thanks to the group of folks, who recognized that federalization was going to happen, we were able to get some concessions in the bill, and some flexibility. But we could have advocated for more, and been taken more seriously if we hadn’t been so divided,” she said.

“I had hoped that when the bill was signed into law that maybe then our community could become united behind some thoughtful and practical ideas on what should go into the regulations—but as long as the administration’s threat of litigation still hangs over our heads, that unified position seems unlikely,” she added.

A local attorney who asked not to be named called the lawsuit “an exercise in futility.” He said the Covenant allows the United States the discretion to extend the application of the Immigration and Naturalization Act to the Commonwealth. He added that the United States previously allowed the CNMI to control its own immigration, so it could restrict its borders and not be overwhelmed by outsiders as what had happened on the mainland.

But while the United States had exercised that discretion in favor of the CNMI, it never conceded the power to “federalize” local immigration, he said.

“In light of the submerged lands case, in light of prior federal cases interpreting the Covenant, it appears that a lawsuit, while commendable, may be an exercise in futility,” the attorney said. [B][I](With Stefan Sebastian)[/I][/B]