Skip to comments.
Jenks: Fast-Track Would Lead To Passage Of Trade Deal That Could ‘Open Up’ Immigration Laws
Breitbart.com ^
| June 15, 2015
| Ian Hanchett
Posted on 06/15/2015 1:39:09 PM PDT by Jane Long
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
Jenks and NumbersUSA have been at the forefront of research, on all things immigration and border security.
1
posted on
06/15/2015 1:39:09 PM PDT
by
Jane Long
To: Jane Long
Totally false. Various politicians and pundits have sought to arouse suspicions by claiming, among other things, that TPA will permit President Obama to bypass Congress and use the TPP as a backdoor to, among other things, lawlessly expand immigration, curtail gun rights, or restrict Internet freedom. At this point, however, I hope you can see just how ridiculous these claims are. Regardless of the issue, the fact will always remain that nothing can be implemented via the TPP unless Congress agrees to implement it via a formal vote.
This would include things like new work visas (something that U.S. FTAs havent actually done for years now) or Internet regulations or gun rules or minimum wages or whatever: it all has to become law before it has any legal force, and the only people making law are Congress (and, again, according to their own procedural rules). So, if in the TPP the president committed the United States to toss every AR-15 into the Atlantic Ocean, those guns arent going anywhere unless Congress formally agrees, subject to all of the constitutional, procedural, and transparency rules already discussed.
And, really, do you think this Congress is going to do anything of the sort? Really? (For more specific debunking of these crazy ideas, go here, here, here and here.)
We still dont know precisely whats in the TPP, and final judgmentby Congress and the publicshould therefore be withheld until we do. But the idea that TPP, empowered by TPA, will grant President Obama any new legal authority to ignore or change U.S. immigration or gun or whatever laws without Congress is simply ludicrous.
2
posted on
06/15/2015 1:41:32 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
“to toss every AR-15 into the Atlantic Ocean, those guns arent going anywhere unless Congress formally agrees”...
“and lots of liberals die trying to take them.”
To: SoConPubbie
LOL...NumbersUSA must be wrong, too...if the “Myth Charts” disagree.
So, let’s see...here are just a few, who are against TPA/TPA/Fast Track...
Sen Jeff Sessions
Gov Sarah Palin
Gov Rick Perry (I know, he’s the finger in the wind candidate)
Mark Levin
Breitbart
NumbersUSA
Misled researchers and/or faux conservatives, all?
4
posted on
06/15/2015 1:48:07 PM PDT
by
Jane Long
("And when thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek")
To: Jane Long
ObamaTrade is Obama’s Bucket List for the United States
5
posted on
06/15/2015 1:49:24 PM PDT
by
molson209
(Blank)
To: SoConPubbie
It is my understanding that Obama’s pen and Obama’s phone enable him to bypass the constitution, congress, and the will of the people.
6
posted on
06/15/2015 1:54:14 PM PDT
by
erkelly
To: SoConPubbie
From the article...
...Jenks later argued that the chances of a trade deal being rejected due to an immigration provision is Zero. The history is that no trade agreement has ever been stopped once fast-track authority has been given, and this fast-track authority, in particular, specifically limits the way that a trade agreement can be stopped by saying that the disapproval or the action to stop it has to come from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee or Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Chairman of the Finance Committee. Now, those two get to decide whether the TPP and TiSA, and whatever comes next abide by the terms of the fast-track deal. Those two, no other member of Congress can decide that.
7
posted on
06/15/2015 1:57:23 PM PDT
by
Jane Long
("And when thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek")
To: Jane Long
We have immigration laws?
Who knew...
8
posted on
06/15/2015 1:58:44 PM PDT
by
silverleaf
(Age takes a toll: Please have exact change)
To: SoConPubbie
Myth????...Cruz is wrong?
9
posted on
06/15/2015 2:00:17 PM PDT
by
Theoria
(I should never have surrendered. I should have fought until I was the last man alive)
To: Jane Long
I trust Numbers USA more than any Congressman or Senator.
10
posted on
06/15/2015 2:04:16 PM PDT
by
Georgia Girl 2
(The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
To: SoConPubbie
I never thought a GOP Congress would give Obama the ability to negotiate a 'free trade' deal.
I didn't think they were that stupid.
11
posted on
06/15/2015 2:08:19 PM PDT
by
fortheDeclaration
(Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
To: Georgia Girl 2
NumbersUSA has been a long respected organization for border security and illegal immigrant information, on this forum, for many years.
12
posted on
06/15/2015 2:08:55 PM PDT
by
Jane Long
("And when thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek")
To: SoConPubbie
If it’s so much a “myth”, then let the draft phase of TPP/TISA/TTIP be opened.
13
posted on
06/15/2015 2:09:35 PM PDT
by
setha
(It is past time for the United States to take back what the world took away.)
To: SoConPubbie
The point is TiSA. You missed it.
14
posted on
06/15/2015 2:10:47 PM PDT
by
justa-hairyape
(The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
To: setha
If its so much a myth, then let the draft phase of TPP/TISA/TTIP be opened.
Totally false. Probably the most-repeated myth right now isnt even related to TPA but instead to the TPP, which is still being negotiated. According to the anti-TPA script, the TPP is so secret that nobody knows whats in it, andmuch like Obamacare legislationnobody, not even Congress, will know whats in it until the agreement is passed into law. Once again, however, nothing could be further from the truth:
- First, Obamas USTR and Congress have been consulting on the TPP since December 14, 2009, when then-USTR Kirk notified Congress that President Obama intended to enter into TPP negotiations. USTR then held initial consultations with Congress in 2010 and, according to a January 2015 fact-sheet, has since held almost 1,700 congressional briefings on TPP alone. USTR also previewed various TPP proposals with key congressional committees before taking them to our trading partners. (Odd that the TPP talks have been going on for six years, but the vast majority of these secrecy complaints have only emerged in the last few months, huh?)
- Second, USTR has provided access to the full negotiating texts for any Member of Congress, including for Members to view at their convenience in the Capitol, accompanied by staff members with appropriate security clearance. This access began in 2012, and several House members and senatorsboth supportive of TPA (like Mike Lee) and opposed (like Sens. Jeff Sessions and Elizabeth Warren, as well as Rep. Rosa DeLauro)have reviewed the draft negotiating texts. Moreover, the level of security surrounding these TPP texts isnt part of some scary Obama administration plot; its set by Congress (which, as youll recall, is controlled by Republicans these days). A U.S. government official confirmed to me that the Senate and House security offices determine the procedures for viewing classified material in the Capitol reading room where the TPP text is kept for Members—not the administration
some people claim that its more difficult to view military or intelligence information, but its all subject to the same rules that are set and enforced by Capitol security.”
- Third, USTR has engaged the public on the TPP via published reports and stakeholder meetings with groups like labor unions, consumer groups, and, of course, corporations and trade associations. Some of these stakeholders have even reviewed the negotiating texts and US proposals. Admittedly, the official texts arent available to the general public, but this is common practice for all FTAs (as a quick Google search reveals) and for good reason: just like other high-value negotiations among private parties or governments, revealing draft proposals before a deal is struck emboldens the opposition, undermines the parties negotiating positions, and exposes negotiators to public scrutiny over provisions that might not even be in a final deal. Publishing draft FTA texts would make completing a deal difficult, if not impossible, and its thus no coincidence the most vocal advocates for full transparency in free trade negotiations are actually those most opposed to free trade.Its also important to understand just how unoriginal this secrecy canard is:
Yes, protectionists have been using the same secrecy lines for over 20 years. In fact, if you replaced NAFTA with TPP in those old Ross Perot commercials, theyd be almost indistinguishable from the ones on our TVs today.
- Finally, unlike the oft-analogized Obamacare legislation, the actual text of any final TPP deal will be required by law to be publicly available (online) for monthsyes, monthsbefore Congress votes on it. As you can see from the table below (source), under TPA the president must make the entire text of any trade agreement, including TPP, available to the public for 60 days before he can even sign it.Once its signed, Congress will have weeks, maybe months, to scour the deal, hold mock markups in various committees, and suggest changes to the agreement before the president sends Congress legislation implementing the FTA for a final vote. Also, within 105 days of the FTAs signing, the U.S. International Trade Commission must issue a report on the deals economic impactagain prior those bills being submitted to Congress. And once the bills finally are submitted, Congress will then have up to 90 legislative days (which is like five months in normal human days) to review the bills and hold final votes.
Bottom line: when or if TPA is passed, the general public will have monthsand if the presidential elections interfere, maybe yearsto review the TPP before Congress acts on it. Think thats crazy? Well, its precisely what happened to U.S. FTAs with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, which were signed by President Bush but sat around (online) for years before they were submitted to, and passed by, Congress in 2011.
![Lincicome2](http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Lincicome2-1024x489.jpg)
15
posted on
06/15/2015 2:13:36 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: Jane Long
and this fast-track authority, in particular, specifically limits the way that a trade agreement can be stopped by saying that the disapproval or the action to stop it has to come from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee or Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Chairman of the Finance Committee. Now, those two get to decide whether the TPP and TiSA, and whatever comes next abide by the terms of the fast-track deal. Those two, no other member of Congress can decide that.
Totally false. Not only does the latest version of TPA include new language expressly stating that the House or Senate can dismantle the fast-track rules for various disapproval reasons, buteven more importantlyCongress has always retained this power because it has plenary authority over its rules of procedure, including fast track.
The new TPA, like previous versions before it, acknowledges this fact in Sec. 106(c), which states that the fast-track rules are enacted as as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives and the Senate, but with the full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as any other rule of that House. The CRS summary of TPA reiterates this fact: Congress reserves its constitutional right to withdraw or override the expedited procedures for trade implementing bills, which can take effect with a vote by either House of Congress.
Such power is not merely theoretical. It is precisely what then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi did to the Colombia FTA in 2008 after President Bush submitted its implementing legislation. Her move effectively dismantled the fast track procedures and thus delayed congressional consideration of the agreement indefinitely.
In short, Congress retains total control over the FTA implementation process under TPA and can only be bound by the fast track rules if it wants to be bound.
Sensing a theme here yet?
16
posted on
06/15/2015 2:16:23 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: Jane Long
and this fast-track authority, in particular, specifically limits the way that a trade agreement can be stopped by saying that the disapproval or the action to stop it has to come from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee or Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Chairman of the Finance Committee. Now, those two get to decide whether the TPP and TiSA, and whatever comes next abide by the terms of the fast-track deal. Those two, no other member of Congress can decide that.
Mostly false. As already noted, TPA sets congressional negotiating objectives on a range of issues (some more palatable than others), but, contrary to the statements of TPA antagonists and even some supporters, these objectives are not legally binding on the executive branch. Instead, the president retains his authority to negotiate with foreign governments, and, as Meese notes, thats a good thing: under well-established constitutional rulings, it would raise serious constitutional concerns for Congress to try to mandate the President’s negotiating positions.
The president and his U.S. trade representative thus technically have discretion to ignore these objectives, but doing so would obviously jeopardize any final congressional vote. As the CRS explains:
To take the fullest advantage of these benefits, Congress, drawing on its constitutional authority and historical precedent, defined the objectives that the President is to pursue in trade negotiations. Although the executive branch has some discretion over implementing these goals, they are definitive statements of U.S. trade policy that the Administration is expected to honor, if it expects trade agreement implementing legislation to be considered under expedited rules [i.e., fast track].
The negotiating objectives constitute one part of the gentlemans agreement between Congress and the president: follow our wishes when you negotiate, and well limit our meddling when a final deal is struck. If the president doesnt follow them, then the deal is off.
17
posted on
06/15/2015 2:17:24 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: Georgia Girl 2; Jane Long
Do both of you trust ALL of the Democrats(excluding Obama), ALL of the unions, ALL of the progressive groups, including the Communists?
Because that is who you have aligned yourselves with.
When you find yourself on the side of EVERY Democrat EXCEPT Obama, the Unions, and every other progressive group, you'd better take a step back and figure out where you have been misinformed.
18
posted on
06/15/2015 2:19:53 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: Georgia Girl 2; Jane Long
I trust Numbers USA more than any Congressman or Senator.
Do both of you trust ALL of the Democrats(excluding Obama), ALL of the unions, ALL of the progressive groups, including the Communists?
Because that is who you have aligned yourselves with.
When you find yourself on the side of EVERY Democrat EXCEPT Obama, the Unions, and every other progressive group, you'd better take a step back and figure out where you have been misinformed.
19
posted on
06/15/2015 2:20:06 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
In a situation where the details are hidden, I don’t know who to trust. That is why the details should be shown, so that we can KNOW what is going on.
20
posted on
06/15/2015 2:54:08 PM PDT
by
DeweyCA
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson