Overview:
As Palau’s leaders debate whether to hold a national referendum on accepting third-country nationals deported from the United States, citizens across the country are voicing strong — and divided — opinions on sovereignty, resources and who should decide the nation’s future.
By: Summer Kennard
KOROR, Palau — As the Palau Senate moves to block the transfer of third-country nationals deported from the United States, public discussion is intensifying over proposed legislation that would put the issue to a national referendum.
Community members from across the country are sharing strong and often differing views — not only on whether Palau should accept deported non-Palauan individuals, but also on whether such a decision should ultimately rest with voters.
A 68-year-old retiree from Melekeok said she supports holding a national referendum but opposes Palau accepting deportees. She questioned why the United States would send deported individuals to Palau rather than return them to their countries of origin or place them in U.S. territories. She added that Palau should prioritize addressing domestic needs, particularly housing and job opportunities for young people.
Others echoed the call for public involvement. Hadleen Medalarak said Palauans deserve a direct voice in decisions that affect the nation’s land, resources and future. She said issues of this scale should reflect the will of the people, not decisions made solely by leaders behind closed doors.
A retired Business Administration instructor from Palau Community College also voiced support for a referendum, citing past agreements involving foreign groups that were not clearly explained to the public. She expressed concern that opening the country to third-country nationals could introduce new challenges, especially as Palau continues to confront drug-related and broader social issues.
Not all residents favor the referendum proposal. A 64-year-old retired high school teacher questioned why lawmakers are calling for a public vote after a memorandum of understanding with the United States has already been signed. He raised concerns about what a referendum could mean for the agreement and said the timing of the proposal is confusing.
Younger residents also raised practical concerns. A 30-year-old concerned citizen said Palau’s small size and limited housing, health care and employment opportunities make it difficult to absorb additional people. He said prioritizing Palauan families does not mean lacking compassion.
Some community members believe Palau could manage the situation with proper safeguards. A 55-year-old health worker said the country has an opportunity to demonstrate compassion while still protecting national interests. She said strong safeguards and international partnerships could help provide necessary support and infrastructure.
Others remain worried about long-term impacts. A 62-year-old finance worker said accepting third-country nationals without a clear plan could affect Palauan culture and community life, potentially creating social tension for future generations.
A 58-year-old business owner offered a more balanced view, saying Palau has a history of standing by its international partners but must also safeguard its sovereignty. He said transparency, clearly defined limits and meaningful community involvement are essential if the country moves forward.
As lawmakers continue debating the future of the MOU and the proposed national referendum, discussions on the issue are unfolding in homes, workplaces and online platforms across Palau.
While community members continue to express deeply personal concerns, legal and policy experts say the proposed referendum also carries constitutional, diplomatic and governance implications that lawmakers must carefully weigh.