‘Disturbing and unnecessary’

A letter to the editor by DOI Field Representative Jeff Schorr that was printed in the May 27, 2009 issues of the Saipan Tribune and Marianas Variety incorrectly stated that I misinterpreted DOI Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Nik Pula’s testimony to believe that he requested a delay of PL 110-229. I was at the oversight hearing and listened to Mr. Pula’s testimony. I also read his testimony and clearly understand what he stated.

On my website and in responses to questions asked by a reporter, I stated that I found a request for a delay in the reporting on recommendations for status of alien workers made by DOI’s Nik Pula, and a request for a delay in the implementation of PL 110-229 made by Governor Fitial to be disturbing. Yes, I find both of these requests disturbing!

Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my remarks. I clearly understand that Mr. Pula was not asking for a delay in the implementation of PL 110-229, but a delay in the report that is due to Congress. From his testimony:

[I]“Public Law 110-229 calls for a report and recommendations on the status of long-term foreign workers by the Secretary of the Interior (in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and Governor of the CNMI), by May 8, 2010. Specifically, the report will include –

-the number of aliens in the CNMI,

-their legal status,

-the length of the aliens’ stays in the CNMI,

-the CNMI economy’s need for foreign workers, and

-recommendations, if deemed appropriate, whether or not legal foreign workers in the CNMI on May 8, 2008, should be able to apply for long-term status under United States law…

… Recently, the Secretary of DHS utilized legislative authority to delay the transition period effective date by 180 days to November 28, 2009. There is, however, no equivalent statutory authority to delay Interior’s report on long-term foreign workers. If there is only five months of administration before the report is due, as the current timeframe would require, insufficient data and other factors may make the completion of a meaningful report difficult. In addition, we are anticipating that status adjustments of some foreign workers will need to be made, potentially increasing the time it will take to complete the report beyond the one year originally allowed for in Public Law 110-229. These factors may make it difficult for Interior and its partners to parse desirable immigration policy and long-term foreign worker issues in an abbreviated timeframe.

The Department of the Interior, therefore, requests that the Congress extend the statutory date for the report on long-term foreign workers by one year to May 8, 2011.”[/I]

My response is this: The federal government knew what deadlines PL 110-229 specified a year ago, and knew what statistics and data were needed to compile the required report. A year after the law has passed is late to be worrying how a deadline will be met. The federal agencies charged with making recommendations in the form of a report to Congress by May 8, 2010, need to get to work immediately, organize with the other federal agencies, and gather the statistics and data instead of proposing a delay!

There are not 100,000,000, or 1,000,000, or 50,000 or even 25,000 nonresidents in the CNMI. The federal government could use GAO experts, hire an outside consultant or firm, or have DHS begin registration of nonresidents to compile needed data. A delay in the report will perpetuate needless uncertainty and hardship for all of the nonresidents and for the CNMI community at large.

I have much respect for Nik Pula. He is a fine person and I am sure is not motivated by any ill will. However, I strongly disagree with his stand on this issue, and yes, I find his request to Congress for a delay in making recommendations on status of long-term guest workers disturbing and unnecessary.

Wendy L. Doromal
via e-mail