In the Northern Mariana Islands, conversations about land often surface deeper questions that are not truly about land alone. They are about belonging, identity, and what it means to be rooted in a place across generations. For many who were born and raised in the Commonwealth but are not of Northern Marianas Descent, there exists a real and deeply felt tension. It is the experience of loving a place, representing it, and carrying it wherever one goes, while also recognizing that there are limits to how that connection is formally acknowledged. That feeling is not imagined. It is lived, and it deserves to be understood with care.
At the same time, understanding that feeling requires situating it within a broader historical and cultural reality. The idea that belonging should be tied to land ownership is not universal. It is the product of a particular historical system shaped by expansion, acquisition, and the transformation of land into a commodity. In the United States, land ownership became intertwined with identity and belonging through processes that were themselves rooted in displacement and redefinition. That model is often treated as the default, but it is neither neutral nor without consequence. In Oceania, and in the Marianas specifically, land has always carried a different meaning. It is not simply something to own, but something one belongs to through lineage, responsibility, and continuity. It is held not only for the present, but for those who came before and those who will come after.
This is the context in which Article XII exists. It is not an arbitrary restriction or an outdated provision. It is a deliberate safeguard, established with the understanding that once land is lost, it is rarely regained. Across the Pacific, there are clear examples of what happens when land protections are weakened over time. In Hawai’i, the transformation of land tenure following the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom fundamentally altered the relationship between people and place. As Haunani-Kay Trask emphasized, Hawai’i is not simply an extension of the United States, but a Polynesian nation whose systems were overtaken. When land was redefined within an external framework, the consequences were not temporary. They reshaped identity, access, and continuity for generations. The Marianas made a conscious decision to avoid that outcome, and Article XII represents that decision.
These tensions are not limited to land alone. They are also emerging in questions of citizenship, particularly as legal debates continue to unfold at the federal level. Concerns raised by Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan and Sheila J. Babauta highlight an unresolved constitutional issue that has persisted for more than a century. The Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on whether birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment fully applies to U.S. territories. As a result, citizenship in the territories exists within a distinct and, at times, uncertain framework. Legal advocates have pointed out that the authority to define or limit citizenship has historically been treated as something subject to political interpretation, rather than permanently settled constitutional principle. Recent federal arguments seeking to narrow the scope of the Citizenship Clause further underscore that even the most basic forms of legal belonging are not immune to reinterpretation.
For the Marianas, this raises a fundamental question about how we understand belonging within systems that are not entirely of our own making. If citizenship itself can be debated, narrowed, or redefined, then it becomes even more important that we clearly define and protect what remains within our control. Article XII is one of those protections. It ensures that land, as the foundation of identity and continuity, remains anchored to the people to whom it is ancestrally tied. It is not a rejection of others, but a recognition that certain boundaries must exist if something essential is to endure.
At the same time, acknowledging the necessity of that protection does not mean ignoring the reality that many people seek a way to establish lasting roots in the islands they call home. The difficulty arises when ownership is treated as the only pathway to permanence. When viewed through that lens, the conversation becomes constrained to a false choice between opening land ownership or maintaining exclusion. That binary does not reflect the full range of possibilities available to us.
The responsibility of this generation is not to dismantle Article XII, but to build what has not yet been fully developed around it. This includes creating systems that allow for long-term presence, intergenerational continuity, and meaningful participation without transferring ancestral land ownership. Models such as long-term land access arrangements, community land trusts, and stewardship-based frameworks offer ways to establish roots while maintaining the integrity of land protections. These approaches recognize that what people are ultimately seeking is not simply ownership, but continuity. They are seeking the ability to return, to remain, and to pass something forward to future generations that affirms their connection to place.
Continuity, in the Marianas, has never depended solely on ownership. It has always been grounded in relationship, responsibility, and a shared understanding that land is not only something we hold, but something that holds us in return. Article XII preserves that relationship. It ensures that the foundation remains intact even as the society around it continues to evolve.
The challenge before us is not whether to change that foundation, but whether we have the vision to build around it in a way that reflects both who we are and the realities we face. This requires moving beyond inherited frameworks and developing systems that are grounded in our own history, values, and responsibilities. It requires recognizing that belonging can be expanded without eroding what must be protected.
Because once land is lost, it does not return. And once that connection is broken, it cannot easily be restored. The task before us is not to choose between protection and belonging, but to ensure that both can exist, without one coming at the expense of the other.
Gregorie Michael Towai (Eipéráng) is a cultural advocate and independent researcher from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands currently residing in Oregon. He writes on Pacific governance, ocean policy, and diaspora political participation.
Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMI News Service or its staff. All assertions are the sole responsibility of the writer.
To submit an op-ed for consideration, email your piece to brad.ruszala@nminewsservice.com
