The Saipan Tribune had an interesting article suggesting differences between Washington Representative Pete A. Tenorio and Saipan Chamber of Commerce President Juan T. Guerrero on labor and immigration policies.
For some reason, it reminded me of when former Governor Juan N. Babauta was Washington Rep. While everybody on Saipan was being defensive and doing their best Sergeant Schultz ("I see nothing"), Babauta said it was time to admit we had problems and to do something about them. That doesn't sound very radical now, does it?
Why would an elected official serving in the nation's capitol have a different view than Saipan-based officials? Could the Washington Representative be:
1. out of touch with the islands, or
2. more realistic about the political reality in Washington D.C. and our ability to affect it, or
3. trying to stall the Washington politicos until they move on to other issues, or
4. some or all of the above?
I'd try a fun little poll, but there's no time to install a voting widget on the website.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Policy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
hey kap, here's an interesting thought. how bout we do an accross the board comparison between Guam and the CNMI (to see which system actually would benefit us)?
That would be fun. Wish I could come up with software for a wiki.
Our obvious advantage is that Congress can't arbitrarily change the rules, i.e. the Organic Act. Guam is a Possession, stolen fair and square from the Spanish and invented in Washington. The Covenant is negotiated.
And of course labor and immigration control is a huge advantage, if we don't screw it up.
The first time I saw somebody complain that a law 'wasn't organic', I thought I was back in Oregon.
Another obvious difference.
On Guam, you get ahead by marrying a Blas or an Ada. On Saipan, you'd better go for Tenorio or Sablan.
Just kidding.
Post a Comment