So this week, Winnie Atalig wrote another letter to the editor, this time sharing her "thoughts on how the CNMI should decide on this nonresident issue." First of all, I would like to begin by checking with our good friends at Merriam-Webster just what exactly the word "resident" means: living in a place for some length of time. I know I have stressed this before, but apparently people still don't quite understand it, so I will say it again: going by the dictionary definition of the word, most of these contract workers are NOT guests or nonresidents; they are actually residents of the CNMI.
Moving on to her first point, she says, "Nonresidents and residents should come to an agreement that proves that nonresidents are needed here and that without them our lives would be affected." To this I say: the residents of the CNMI do not need to come to any such agreement; the proof that the non-indigenous residents are needed in the CNMI is all around us. Just take a step outside your house or work place, and look at the paved roads, the schools, the government buildings, the banks, and other local attractions: the non-indigenous residents of the CNMI whom you insist on calling "nonresidents" were the ones who, over the past few decades, were mostly responsible for their development.
In her next bullet she states, "All problems that can be corrected by a regulatory agency should not be used as testimony as it invites more negative thoughts." Just what, exactly, does she consider a problem that can be corrected by a regulatory agency? Last I checked, none of the local "regulatory agencies" were capable of correcting any of the labor & immigration related problems; wasn't that the main reason that the federal government stepped in and took over the system?
She then goes on to say, "Changes require a lot of things. That is why nonresidents should tell us, the people of the CNMI, why they want to stay with us and become one of us so that we can welcome them to stay here, our homeland. All of us must apologize for our mistakes and help make them right." While I am not completely against this one, because I do believe that we all must apologize for our mistakes and help make them right, I fail to understand why she needs all of the non-indigenous residents of the CNMI to declare their reasons for wanting to stay in the CNMI. They sought a better life, and found it in the CNMI. I cannot speak with full-on certainty that this is true for the multitudes of non-indigenous CNMI residents, but I believe that for many, the reason is as simple as that. Is it so wrong to dream of a better life and to do whatever it takes to achieve that dream?
Next, she really sticks her neck out there by stating, "Testimony that applies to one person is not enough to prove you deserve to be welcomed here." To this, I have but two things to say: 1. It can be said that a testimony that applies to one person can most likely apply to many others as well, due to the general similarities in the plight of many non-indigenous CNMI resident workers. 2. Why do any of these non-indigenous CNMI resident workers have to prove that they deserve to be welcomed here? If tourists are welcomed to the Islands without having to prove that they deserve a warm welcome, why should CNMI residents who have been working in our country for many years have to do so? If the case were that everyone in the CNMI had to prove that they deserved to be welcomed here, then could it not be said that the non-indigenous CNMI resident workers deserve to be welcomed here more than the unemployed members of the local indigenous population who live out their days taking advantage of SNAP and waiting for handouts?
I am skipping her next bullet, because all it does is show an example of her idea of how a non-indigenous CNMI resident worker can prove that he or she deserves to stay in the CNMI. Seeing as how I have already covered that particular topic in my previous paragraph, I will instead cover the bullet after that, in which she says, "90 percent of the residents agree to have nonresidents as residents." I hate to break it to her, but one-hundred percent of the residents agreed to have "nonresidents" as residents. They did this when they all agreed to have foreigners come in as labor units to fill the jobs that they (the local indigenous population) did not want to do. Because most of these foreigners stayed in the CNMI doing these jobs for years, they essentially became residents of the CNMI, and this was completely fine with the local indigenous population, as long as these workers kept doing their jobs.
Her next point is that "Local residents are given enough proof to welcome the nonresidents and at least 99 percent of the outcomes are to our liking. " I already went over the issue of needing to provide proof when it comes to welcoming the non-indigenous residents, so I won't repeat myself down here. What I do have to say to this is, what makes the local indigenous residents so special that "at least 99 percent of the outcomes" must be to their liking? The way it sounds to me, she's trying to say that the local indigenous population should have the final say in everything when it comes to the issue of these non-indigenous CNMI resident workers. Can someone please explain to me how this is fair?
She brings out a final point, saying that "Laws should be in place to protect CNMI Chamorro and Carolinian assets and culture." I agree with this one-hundred percent, but I do not see how it relates to the non-indigenous CNMI resident issue. I definitely believe that laws should have been in place a long time ago to protect and preserve the Chamorro and Carolinian language and culture. However, I fail to see a connection between that and the current issue. Is she trying to spread fear by implying that the non-indigenous CNMI resident workers pose a threat to the local Chamorro and Carolinian culture? This simply is not true, because these people have been around for decades, and to the best of my knowledge, they have not done anything to try to attack, alter, or remove the local Chamorro and Carolinian culture. Any changes to the local Chamorro and Carolinian culture are a result of cultural globalization and were not caused by the non-indigenous residents moving in.
She ends her letter saying that those were a few thoughts that she felt were fair, and asks if we felt so as well. I think you already know that my answer is an intense and resounding "NO!" Thank you for your time, Marianas; I apreciate every second of it that you have spent reading my letter.
No comments:
Post a Comment