Thread: Sen. Sessions: Trade Deal Could Trigger Flood of Illegals

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 11:56 AM

By: Joel Himelfarb

Opponents of granting the Obama administration broad authority to negotiate a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, led by Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, contend that the White House will try to use the deal to trigger a flood of new immigrants into the United States, Politico reported.

Backers of the deal, led by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, have dismissed Sessions' argument as an "urban legend" and said there is nothing in the current draft of the trade agreement affecting immigration.

"There's nothing in this bill that applies to immigration, and we've been assured by the administration that there will be nothing in any of the trade pacts that will involve immigration," Hatch, a Utah Republican, said Monday.

Immigration "is a false issue" with regard to the trade measure, Hatch added. "We made sure it's not in there."

Sessions, for one, isn't buying it.

There are "numerous ways" the trade deal "could facilitate immigration increases above current law — and precious few ways anyone in Congress could stop its happening," Sessions wrote in a memo circulated during the weekend.

He argued that language aimed at bringing more foreign workers into the United States could be added to the agreement.

Past trade deals suggest there is precedent for such a move. In 2002, Sessions opposed giving President George W. Bush trade promotion authority. The following year, the Bush administration included temporary visas from Singapore and Chile in their respective trade pacts despite opposition from Congress.

But during negotiations over the current trade deal, the Obama administration has informed Congress that immigration has no role in the current talks.

In an April 22 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman repeated his promise that no provisions of the Trans-Pacific deal (TPP) would lead to changes in U.S. immigration law or regulations.

"I … welcome the opportunity to clarify that the United States is not negotiating and will not agree to anything in TPP that would require any modification to U.S. immigration law or policy or any changes to the U.S. visa system," Froman wrote Grassley.

After receiving Froman's assurances, Grassley said he decided not to offer an amendment addressing these concerns during the Finance Committee's markup of the fast-track bill.

Grassley did say, however, that he may do so when the measure is debated on the Senate floor. And Sessions himself could decide to offer immigration-related amendments to the trade measure.

In fact, among congressional Republicans there is a deep and abiding skepticism of the Obama administration's promises and considerable doubt it is acting in good faith on immigration. Critics point to the president's "executive amnesty" push and the administration's admission that it misled a federal judge over the issue.

Rep. Mo Brooks — an Alabama Republican who is sharply critical of the Obama administration's immigration policies but undecided about giving the Obama administration so-called "fast-track" authority to negotiate trade deals — put his position this way: "If there is any chance whatsoever of the Obama administration using any of these trade bills to increase this huge influx in foreign labor to the detriment of American citizens, I'm a 'no' vote."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Jef.../05/id/642664/

"I … welcome the opportunity to clarify that the United States is not negotiating and will not agree to anything in TPP that would require any modification to U.S. immigration law or policy or any changes to the U.S. visa system," Froman wrote Grassley.
After receiving Froman's assurances, Grassley said he decided not to offer an amendment addressing these concerns during the Finance Committee's markup of the fast-track bill.

Grassley did say, however, that he may do so when the measure is debated on the Senate floor. And Sessions himself could decide to offer immigration-related amendments to the trade measure.

Oh puleeze!! They don't intend to increase immigration from these treaties through changes in immigration law. They intend to violate US immigration law in order to abide the treaty which under our Constitution prevails over immigration law. Sure, you'll keep your laws, they will just be ignored. Have you learned nothing from NAFTA? NAFTA didn't change our laws, it increased illegal immigration, flooding our country with illegal aliens who are supported by drug cartels and the Mexican Government. Now, figure that scenario from 12 more countries, along with all the other countries presently with trade agreements with the United States, and PERHAPS someone in the US Congress will understand how this free trade treason actually works. It's not changes to immigration law, it's changes to immigration itself, flooding our nation with people from countries with whom we have agreements stating one way or another that this is OKAY and no harm will come to them as a result.

Why do you think Froman wants "fast track authority" to put the deal together to begin with? So it can bypass the US Congress and US law in the process.

And why would you support this trade deal even if there wasn't an immigration issue? The trade deal sucks, they all suck, they all displace US workers, and Congress funds an account under the "Trade Adjustment Acts" to pay a little money to the Americans who lose their jobs for re-training and some extended unemployment benefits. Why would you support a trade deal that YOU KNOW will result in unemployment of Americans because it's sucking their employers out of the country and our economy?!

I've hinted at it today, but plainly speaking truth as a preponderance of evidence displays clearly. an American citizen counts for nothing in the United States Of America! It is very undeniable that both parties have sold out Americans, and if you want the Constitution to apply you have to re-instate it. The politicians are not going to do it. The warnings have been there, and even spoken about by others and yours truly but ignored by a super majority of Americans. Is that super majority going to retrieve America or continue to procrastinate hoping someone will do it for them? Trying to re-instate the Constitution from within the democrat or republican party is continued procrastination!!