Posted on 06/20/2015 7:55:29 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz blew away another gathering of religious conservative leaders this week, preaching about threats to religious freedom to a receptive and hungry crowd.
"I will never, ever, ever shy away from standing up and defending the religious liberty of every American," the GOP White House hopeful thundered at the Faith and Freedom Coalition's "Road to Majority" conference in Washington.
"Religious liberty has never been more threatened in America than right now today," Cruz added.
Cruz hit all the right notes and could easily be declared the winner of the three-day conference, which wraps up Saturday. But despite the good receptions at events like these, Cruz's work on stage is not translating to the campaign trail. He not only lags behind in early state polls, but also in organization. And despite being the first major presidential candidate to declare this cycle, early state activists are baffled by how little they say they have seen Cruz.
"I've always thought that Ted Cruz was kind of the perfect caucus candidate," said Craig Robinson, who runs "The Iowa Republican" website and is a former political director for the state party. "But what we haven't seen is a real commitment to the state."
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
You should really stop watching and reading the Democrat Media.
Nobody could be more illegal immigration than I am. I am praying one of the candidates has the guts to support massive deportation.
http://www.conservativehq.com/node/20233
5. Immigration Increases. There are numerous ways TPA could facilitate immigration increases above current law—and precious few ways anyone in Congress could stop its happening. For instance: language could be included or added into the TPP, as well as any future trade deal submitted for fast-track consideration in the next 6 years, with the clear intent to facilitate or enable the movement of foreign workers and employees into the United States (including intracompany transfers), and there would be no capacity for lawmakers to strike the offending provision. The Administration could also simply act on its own to negotiate foreign worker increases with foreign trading partners without ever advertising those plans to Congress. In 2011, the United States entered into an agreement with South Korea—never brought before Congress—to increase the duration of L-1 visas (a visa that affords no protections for U.S. workers).
Every year, tens of thousands of foreign guest workers come to the U.S. as part of past trade deals. However, because there is little transparency, estimating an exact figure is difficult. The plain language of TPA provides avenues for the Administration and its trading partners to facilitate the expanded movement of foreign workers into the U.S.—including visitor visas that are used as worker visas. The TPA reads:
“The principal negotiating objective of the United States regarding trade in services is to expand competitive market opportunities for United States services and to obtain fairer and more open conditions of trade, including through utilization of global value chains, by reducing or eliminating barriers to international trade in services… Recognizing that expansion of trade in services generates benefits for all sectors of the economy and facilitates trade.”
This language, and other language in TPA, offers an obvious way for the Administration to expand the number and duration of foreign worker entries under the concept that the movement of foreign workers into U.S. jobs constitutes “trade in services.”
Stating that “TPP contains no change to immigration law” is a semantic rather than a factual argument. Language already present in both TPA and TPP provide the basis for admitting more foreign workers, and for longer periods of time, and language could later be added to TPP or any future trade deal to further increase such admissions.
The President has already subjected American workers to profound wage loss through executive-ordered foreign worker increases on top of existing record immigration levels. Yet, despite these extraordinary actions, the Administration will casually assert that is has merely modernized, clarified, improved, streamlined, and updated immigration rules. Thus, at any point during the 6-year life of TPA, the Administration could send Congress a trade deal—or issue an executive action subsequent to a trade deal as part of its implementation—that increased foreign worker entry into the U.S., all while claiming it has never changed immigration law.
The President has circumvented Congress on immigration with serial regularity. But the TPA would yield new power to the executive to alter admissions while subtracting congressional checks against those actions. This runs contrary to our Founders’ belief, as stated in the Constitution, that immigration should be in the hands of Congress. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution grants Congress plenary authority over immigration policy. For instance, the Court ruled in Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531 (1954), that “the formulation of policies [pertaining to the entry of immigrants and their right to remain here] is entrusted exclusively to Congress… [This principle] has become about as firmly imbedded in the legislative and judicial issues of our body politic as any aspect of our government.” Granting the President TPA could enable controversial changes or increases to a wide variety of visas—such as the H-1B, B-1, E-1, and L-1—including visas that confer foreign nationals with a pathway to a green card and thus citizenship.
Future trade deals could also have the possible effect of preventing Congress from reforming abuses in our guest worker programs, as countries could complain that limitations on foreign worker travel constituted a trade barrier requiring adjudication by an international body.
The TPP also includes an entire chapter on “Temporary Entry” that applies to all parties and that affects U.S. immigration law. Additionally, the Temporary Entry chapter creates a separate negotiating group, explicitly contemplating that the parties to the TPP will revisit temporary entry at some point in the future for the specific purpose of making changes to this chapter—after Congress would have already approved the TPP. This possibility grows more acute given that TPP is a “living agreement” that can be altered without Congress.
Proponents of TPA should be required to answer this question: if you are confident that TPA would not enable any immigration actions between now and its 2021 expiration, why not include ironclad enforcement language to reverse any such presidential action?
I disagree with Jeff Sessions, as does Senator Cruz
Cruz proposed just such an Amendment reinforcing our immigration laws.
BTW< Jeff Sessions didn’t vote for the last TPA in 2002, for the same reasons. All the crap he said was going to happen then didn’t happen, and it is not going to happen now. There were at least s dozen trade deals done under the last TPA.
Folks scream about NAFTA. The reason we are still bleeding jobs overseas is because of regulations, unions, and high corporate taxes, The Dems have done an excellent job of diverting blame to keep us from addressing the real problems.
That amendment never made it to the senate floor.
Both of these senators seem to be good men, but only one of them voted to reduce the votes needed to 51. I want to know why. It’s a fair question.
Cruz was representing the 3 million jobs in the state of Texas that rely on imports. I think he really wants to have TPA for the next President. The next Congress may have a Dem controlled Senate, which will never pass TPA.
There has not been a trade deal passed without TPA in 80 years. We are being shut out of the world market and soon will not be able to compete.
Looks like the Senate is going to get another shot at it. I’ve already notified both my Senators not to vote for TPA without the Cruz language.
There has not been a trade deal passed without TPA in 80 years. We are being shut out of the world market and soon will not be able to compete.
We have also never had a person as president before that is out to destroy this country. I think that is a little more important than the history of TPA.
That is why TPP will not pass. No Body trust Obama nad everyone knows beside his agenda, he is the world’s lousiest negotiator. We have 44 Dems who will vote against. I can think of 4 Repubs who will vote against out of the chute and a slew of others who will vote against because of wanting to be re elected.
That is why TPP will not pass. No Body trust Obama
This is what is so scary to me. The R’s keep voting with Obama, while telling voters they don’t trust him. The words don’t match the rhetoric. I am tired of being lied to by the gope, and I did not believe Cruz was one of them.
The thing is, someone in this whole equation is wrong, Either Cruz or Sessions. Since I don’t trust Obama, and distrust those that do, I tend to believe Sessions until proven different.
Where is the proof that a bad tpp bill would not get 51 votes? I don’t think that Cruz can promise this, so why then vote to change anything to give Obama a possible edge?
Well, I don’t think this assessment by NPR is worth anything. NPR doesn’t have a clue.
Attorney General Ed Meese, of the Reagan administration, is a liar and a spin-miester? Seriously?! Is there any crazy thing you folks won’t say to degrade Ted Cruz?
mnmikey, I read much and comment seldom.
Magglepuss appears to have an issue with a policy position of Mr. Cruz as opposed to disappointment of individuals support or nonsupport of Mr. Cruz.
I very much like Mr. Cruz, as it seems Magglepuss does, but to impugn him/her as a one issue voter denotes, to a degree, your own blind faith.
I do not grieve for my country, I actively pursue the means to affect the true greatness of this political experiment. Grieve not for your country, but for the blinders which you have placed upon your own senses and sensibilities
thank you, and very well said.
“We’re in active discussion on TPA,” said McConnell, adding, “It’s an enormous grant of power, obviously, from a Republican Congress to a Democratic president, but that’s how much we believe in trade as an important part of America’s economy.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/mcconnell-fast-track_n_6432118.html
We all know that Obamacare is not about health care, and I am very concerned that this is not about trade. It doesn’t matter how good the bill is, we know that Obama will change the law, and get away with it, just like he did Obamacare.
What would our congress do if Obama tries to pull a fast one on them, impeach him?
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.