Obama Sneaking in ‘Unrestricted Immigration’ in TPA Trade Deal

[Brian4Liberty]

Obama Sneaking in ‘Unrestricted Immigration’ in TPA Trade Deal (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/04/20/morris-obama-sneaking-in-unrestricted-immigration-in-tpa-trade-deal/)
by Pam Key - 20 Apr 20150


Monday on Newmax TV’s “America’s Forum,” political commentator Dick Morris said the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPA) fast track being supported by many Republicans has a provision that allows for the “free flow of workers” between countries, essentially creating a backdoor to “unrestricted immigration.”

Morris said, “This is huge. I hope everybody listening takes action call your senator about it. If he is a Republican he is voting wrong. “I dont think that people understand that in this deal which is a trade agreement among Australia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Japan, Canada, the United States, Mexico, Peru, and Chile, there’s a provision for free flow of workers, just like in the European Union. What It means is unrestricted immigration. It means literally that congress would not have the authority to restrict immigration because a treaty supersedes a statute under our constitution.”
...
Video at link: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/04/20/morris-obama-sneaking-in-unrestricted-immigration-in-tpa-trade-deal/

[Brian4Liberty]

The US Chamber of Commerce is getting it's way. Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Obama are all in on it together. Give all the power to the POTUS, and bypass the sometimes pesky Congress to implement the crony corporatist agenda.

Rome all over again. Give all the power to Caesar.

[Acala]

So that means I can emigrate to Japan, Australia, or Canada? Sounds good to me!

[Peace Piper]

The US Chamber of Commerce is getting it's way. Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Obama are all in on it together. Give all the power to the POTUS, and bypass the sometimes pesky Congress to implement the crony corporatist agenda.

Rome all over again. Give all the power to Caesar.

Why did you leave Rand out of your list?

Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership

Politics, the saying goes, makes strange bedfellows. In presidential politics, the cozy compromises with the unconstitutional seem even more unsettling.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a man whose personal popularity and political fortunes have increased in direct proportion to his spreading of his libertarian-leaning ideals, has now publicly embraced the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an unprecedented sovereignty surrender masquerading as a multi-national trade pact.

Paul’s speech coincided with the TPP ministerial meeting conducted October 19-24 in Sydney, Australia.

Speaking at the Center for the National Interest dinner in New York City on October 23, Senator Paul said:


Our national power is a function of the national economy. During the Reagan renaissance, our strength in the world reflected our successful economy.

Low growth, high unemployment, and big deficits have undercut our influence in the world. Americans have suffered real consequences from a weak economy.

President George W. Bush understood that part of the projection of American power is the exporting of American goods and culture. His administration successfully brokered fourteen new free trade agreements and negotiated three others that are the only new free trade agreements approved since President Obama took office. Instead of just talking about a so-called “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership by year’s end.

Why would Rand Paul, a man who has in the past demonstrated a remarkable adherence to the principles of the Constitution, make his own “pivot” away from those doctrines and toward a pact as pernicious as the TPP? Perhaps the answer is found in this paragraph from a story on Paul’s speech printed in The Diplomat: "As a Republican presidential hopeful, Paul likely recognizes that his and the party’s interests are best served by trying to find some issues on which Republicans can cooperate with the administration. This would give the American electorate confidence that the Republican Party is interested in governing, and would make it harder for Democrats to use disgust with the Republican Party to mobilize the Democratic base in the 2016 election."...more
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/19439-rand-paul-to-obama-prioritize-passage-of-trans-pacific-partnership

Rand is up to his eyeballs in this TPP. Where does he "stand" on the TTIP?

[Brian4Liberty]

So that means I can emigrate to Japan, Australia, or Canada? Sounds good to me!

I'd wager that in reality, it will only work one way. Sorry, you are stuck, unless you can purchase your new nation. Your choices will probably be mid range.

[idiom]

So that means I can emigrate to Japan, Australia, or Canada? Sounds good to me!

Blow that noise, I don't want New Zealand flooded with Americans. ;) I am not as much of a libertarian as Obama I guess.

[Acala]

Blow that noise, I don't want New Zealand flooded with Americans. ;) I am not as much of a libertarian as Obama I guess.

Get your spare bedroom ready! I'm coming! Might have to sneak my guns in . . .

[Acala]

Having scanned the wikipedia article on the treaty, I note that an awful lot of people that I don't generally agree with are opposed to it. Krugman, Reich, Sierra CLub, organized labor, etc. Anyone want to emlighten me?

[Brian4Liberty]

Why did you leave Rand out of your list?

I didn't know that he was supporting TPA. I had forgotten that he supported TPP. Add him to the list. No doubt he is doing this to help McConnell, and at the end of the money/lobby trail, it is the bidding of the US Chamber of Commerce.

In 2013, an article said that Rand would oppose giving fast-track trade authority (TPA) to the POTUS:

Rand Paul warns of Obama 'fast track' to global trade zone (http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/rand-paul-warns-of-obama-fast-track-to-global-trade-zone/)

Then it changed, from another article in Dec, 2014:


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has taken every conceivable position on the trade pact. In October, he gave a speech calling for Obama to finalize the TPP by year-end. Back in January, he was scheduled to attend a press conference attacking "Obamatrade." In September 2011, he voted against an amendment offered by McConnell that would give Obama the power to push through the deal without any amendments from Congress. The next month, Paul introduced a new bill that included McConnell's entire amendment.

Paul told The Huffington Post on Tuesday that he supports the broader trade agreement but is undecided on a fast-track bill.

"I'm definitely for the trade pact," Paul said. "I haven't fully decided on [Trade Promotion Authority]."

And now we have (4/8/15):


Paul’s positions on the U.S. economy are unsurprising for a Republican. He wants lower taxes, less spending and fewer regulations. He believes in the power of free trade and open markets.

So he supports international trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. He supports passing the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), though he admits to having qualms about how TPA requires Congress to give up some of its leverage on trade.

http://www.newsweek.com/rand-paul-all-you-need-know-320821


Found a related thread here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?472921-What-is-Rand-Paul-s-position-on-the-TPP

[Brian4Liberty]

Having scanned the wikipedia article on the treaty, I note that an awful lot of people that I don't generally agree with are opposed to it. Krugman, Reich, Sierra CLub, organized labor, etc. Anyone want to emlighten me?

And Obama supports it.

Just to keep it simple, this is a crony corporatist, managed trade agreement which also advances global government. It is not "free trade". Once it is implemented, the results will be the same as usual, the U.S. will abide by most of the terms of the agreements, and others often will not. Global corporations don't care, they are protected. Small business recourse will be through international tribunals that will not take action. Then the argument will be that global trade entities need enforcement power.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFLRuMHAK_w

[Brian4Liberty]

Blow that noise, I don't want New Zealand flooded with Americans. ;) I am not as much of a libertarian as Obama I guess.

No worries for now. This is mostly about destroying the sovereignty of the US. You will be relatively safe until elite elements of the global government cast a jealous or greedy eye in your direction.

[invisible]

Hopefully now that will give Rand an excuse to say he didn't know about that part, and filibuster to keep it from passing. I'd really hate for Rand to continue supporting this thing, it's one of two glaring blemishes on his otherwise excellent record.

[Patrick Henry]

You can add Cruz as well.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Paul-Ryan-Ted-Cruz-Barack-Obama-fast-track/2015/04/22/id/640028/


Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz: Congress Gets Final Say on Trade Pacts


While Ryan and Cruz are allied with Obama in pursuing the two global trade pacts, they argued that "fast-track" legislation would keep lawmakers involved in the process from the beginning and ensure that the current and future presidents are held to account.

"But Congress can't just take the administration's word that it will drive a hard bargain. We have to hold it accountable, and that is what trade-promotion authority will help do," they wrote on Tuesday, adding that "before anything becomes law, Congress gets the final say."

[Brian4Liberty]

They say that Congress "still gets a vote", but under fast-track, isn't the bar lowered from 2/3 for approval (as with a Treaty) down to a bare majority (50%+1)?

Related thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?473044-Lawmakers-reach-deal-on-fast-track-trade-authority

[dannno]

Maybe Rand came out for it initially because he knew they were going to sneak a bunch of stuff in there that he could later point out and say, "well, I did support this until you added _____ and ______________ and ________.."

It gives him more credibility in their eyes because it shows he is open to an agreement and isn't an 'isolationist'.

Who knows... I'm sure he has something up his sleeve, he is a smart guy.

[invisible]

Maybe Rand came out for it initially because he knew they were going to sneak a bunch of stuff in there that he could later point out and say, "well, I did support this until you added _____ and ______________ and ________.."

It gives him more credibility in their eyes because it shows he is open to an agreement and isn't an 'isolationist'.

Who knows... I'm sure he has something up his sleeve, he is a smart guy.

This is exactly what I'm hoping will happen.

[65fastback2+2]

ally with none; trade with all

what i dont get is why some dumb agreement that is going to be a hindrance on down the line is needed

[johnwk]

Why did you leave Rand out of your list?



Ted Cruz is also for this circumvention of our Constitution as I pointed out in my thread!

Paul Ryan ok with Obama regulating commerce with foreign nations (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?473221-Paul-Ryan-ok-with-Obama-regulating-commerce-with-foreign-nations)

JWK

[H. E. Panqui]

dear jesus...i pray that someday soon, the naive, easily-suckered republicans/crats still hoping for some 'great white republicrat political hope' :rolleyes: will catch a clue...please favor them with a clue soon, jesus..:(