Thread: Revealed: The Secret Immigration Chapter in Obama’s Trade Agreement

by Alex Swoyer
10 Jun 2015
Washington, DC
611 comments

Discovered inside the huge tranche of secretive Obamatrade documents released by Wikileaks are key details on how technically any Republican voting for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that would fast-track trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal would technically also be voting to massively expand President Obama’s executive authority when it comes to immigration matters.

The mainstream media covered the Wikileaks document dump extensively, but did not mention the immigration chapter contained within it, so Breitbart News took the documents to immigration experts to get their take on it. Nobody has figured how big a deal the documents uncovered by Wikileaks are until now.

The president’s Trade in Services Act (TiSA) documents, which is one of the three different close-to-completely-negotiated deals that would be fast-tracked making up the president’s trade agreement, show Obamatrade in fact unilaterally alters current U.S. immigration law. TiSA, like TPP or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) deals, are international trade agreements that President Obama is trying to force through to final approval. The way he can do so is by getting Congress to give him fast-track authority through TPA.

TiSA is even more secretive than TPP. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill can review the text of TPP in a secret, secured room inside the Capitol—and in some cases can bring staffers who have high enough security clearances—but with TiSA, no such draft text is available.

Voting for TPA, of course, would essentially ensure the final passage of each TPP, T-TIP, and TiSA by Congress, since in the history of fast-track any deal that’s ever started on fast-track has been approved.

Roughly 10 pages of this TiSA agreement document leak are specifically about immigration.

“The existence of these ten pages on immigration in the Trade and Services Agreement make it absolutely clear in my mind that the administration is negotiating immigration – and for them to say they are not – they have a lot of explaining to do based on the actual text in this agreement,” Rosemary Jenks, the Director of Government Relations at Numbers USA, told Breitbart News following her review of these documents.

Obama will be able to finalize all three of the Obamatrade deals, without any Congressional input, if Congress grants him fast-track authority by passing TPA. Fast-track lowers the vote thresholds in the Senate and blocks Congress from amending any trade deals—and also, since each of these three deals are pretty much entirely negotiated already, it wouldn’t lead to any more congressional involvement or transparency with each.

The Senate passed the TPA last month, so it is up to the House to put the brakes on Obama’s unilateral power. The House could vote as early as Friday on fast-track, but may head into next week. By all counts, it’s going to be a very tight vote—and may not pass. It remains to be seen what will happen in light of leaks about things like the immigration provisions of TiSA—which deals with 24 separate parties, mostly different nations but also the European Union. It is focused on increasing the free flow of services worldwide—and with that, comes labor. Labor means immigration and guestworkers.

“This Trade and Services Agreement is specifically mentioned in TPA as being covered by fast-track authority, so why would Congress be passing a Trade Promotion Authority Act that covers this agreement, if the U.S. weren’t intended to be a party to this agreement – so at the very least, there should be specific places where the U.S. exempts itself from these provisions and there are not,” explained Jenks.

She emphasized that this is a draft, but at this point “certainly the implication is that the U.S. intends to be a party to all or some of the provisions of this agreement. There is nothing in there that says otherwise, and there is no question in my mind that some of the provisions in this Trade and Services Agreement would require the United States to change its immigration laws.”

In 2003, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution that said no immigration provision should be in trade agreements – and in fact, former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) voted for this resolution.

The existence of these 10 pages is in clear violation of that earlier unanimous decision, and also in violation of the statements made by the U.S. Trade Representative.

“He has told members of Congress very specifically the U.S. is not negotiating immigration – or at least is not negotiating any immigration provisions that would require us to change our laws. So, unless major changes are made to the Trade and Services Agreement – that is not true,” said Jenks.

There are three examples within the 10 pages of areas where the U.S. would have to alter current immigration law.

First, on page 4 and 5 of the agreement, roughly 40 industries are listed where potentially the U.S. visa processes would have to change to accommodate the requirements within the agreement.

Jenks explained that under the agreement, the terms don’t have an economic needs based test, which currently U.S. law requires for some types of visa applications in order to show there aren’t American workers available to fill positions.

Secondly, on page 7 of the agreement, it suggests, “The period of processing applications may not exceed 30 days.”

Jenks said this is a massive problem for the U.S. because so many visa applications take longer than 30 days.

“We will not be able to meet those requirements without essentially our government becoming a rubber stamp because it very often takes more than 30 days to process a temporary worker visa,” she said.

Jenks also spotted another issue with the application process.

“The fact that there’s a footnote in this agreement that says that face to face interviews are too burdensome … we’re supposed to be doing face to face interviews with applicants for temporary visas,” she added.

“According to the State Department Consular Officer, it’s the in person interviews that really gives the Consular Officer an opportunity to determine – is this person is a criminal, is this person a terrorist … all of those things are more easily determined when you’re sitting face to face with someone and asking those questions.”

The third issue is present on page 4 of the agreement. It only provides an “[X]” where the number of years would be filled in for the entry or temporary stay.

Jenks explained that for example, with L visas under current U.S. immigration law, the time limit is seven years – so if the agreement were to go beyond seven years, it would change current U.S. law.

This wouldn’t be unconstitutional if Obama has fast-track authority under TPA, as Congress would essentially have given him the power to finalize all aspects of the negotiations, including altering immigration law.

“I think this whole thing makes it very clear that this administration is negotiating immigration – intends to make immigration changes if they can get away with it, and I think it’s that much more critical that Congress ensure that the administration does not have the authority to negotiate immigration,” Jenks said.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ade-agreement/

Looks like the traitors in DC are going for the death blow to America with the TPP!

W

In Presidential speak, he is not negotiating immigration yet, doesn't mean that he won't. Allowing others without input from him on those 10 pages technically he hasn't negotiated.


If this passes Congress, who can we vote for because the evidence that both parties are selling out Americans will be stifling. Republican can read this book length document, same as Ms. Jenks, they have no excuse left if they vote the wrong way. Seems that the black caucus is the strongest against this, the others are still anyone's best guess.

This could possibly be the final death blow to our country.

Oh my. Check in and I find this! Disguzteen. So I'm looking into the possibility that some congress folks were paid money for their vote to fast-track this vbykwii (vote before you know what's in it) bill and it brought me here.
Something has to give. Our patience or his persistence?

TiSA Annex on Movement of Natural Persons (11 pages).
Obtained by Wikileaks and posted on Breitbart.com.

www.scribd.com/doc/268287227/TiSA-Annex-on-Movement-of-Natural-Persons#download

Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Annex on Movement of Natural Persons
(February 2015)
WikiLeaks release: June 3, 2015

Keywords: TiSA, Trade in Services Agreement, WTO, GATS, G20, BCBS, IAIS, IOSCO, FATF, OECD, United States, European Union, Australia, Canada, Chile, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Colombia, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey, Uruguay, draft, bracketed text, negotiating positions, travel, natural persons, movement, immigration, borders
Restraint: -FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY- LIMITED - Without prejudice
Title: Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Annex on Movement of Natural Persons
Date: February 13, 2015
Group: Trade in Services Agreement
Author: Trade in Services Agreement country negotiators
Link: wikileaks.org/tisa/natural-persons/
Pages: 10

Description

This is the secret February 2015 draft of the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Annex on Movement of Natural Persons, including negotiating positions.

TiSA is currently under negotiation between the United States, the European Union and 23 other countries. The Agreement creates an international legal regime which aims to deregulate and privatize the supply of services - which account for the majority of the economy across TiSA countries.

The draft Annex aims to harmonize limitations on the ability of national governments to restrict the ingress, movement or egress within their territory of employees, contractors or agents of services companies.

This text dates from the 11th round of TiSA negotiations held 9-13 February 2015 in Geneva, Switzerland.


-FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY- LIMITED

TISA/DEC.2014/negotiating text/MNP

[ED.: Please use the link to Scribd. The document text is in a typeface that does not transpose to this forum.]

http://www.alipac.us/f9/obama-quest-...-house-320309/

We need more activism. Standing on ceremony will get us nowhere. Civil disobedience is what the blacks do. I'll lay in a road, or stand over a bridge for this movement. I could sit here and complain all night and get nothing accomplished. I want to get active. No time to waste.

[ED.: near the end of the TiSA document, on page 9, is tucked away this masterpiece of obscure double-talk. It does not say what one would expect it to say; it does not mean what one might think it means; and what it does say could be twisted and misconstrued in an immigration court to require or allow an outcome that is adverse to the issuing nation or the inhabitants thereof. In this section, where obfuscation seems to be intentional, I did change a few words for clarity. For example, I changed "a Party" to "a government immigration department."]

Originally Posted by TiSA Annex on Movement of Natural Persons

7. [Government immigration departments] recognize the importance of multiple entry visas in facilitating entry and will endeavor to issue multiple entry visas, where appropriate.

8. The competent authorities of each [government immigration department] shall notify the applicant for entry, temporary stay or work permit of the outcome of its application promptly after a decision has been taken. The notification shall include, if applicable, the period of stay and any other terms and conditions.

A [government immigration department] may, on a non-discriminatory basis, and in accordance with existing laws and regulations, refuse to issue a work visa to a business person where the entry of that person might adversely affect:
(a) The settlement of any labor dispute that is in progress at the place or intended place of employment; or
(b) The employment of any person who is involved in such dispute.

"Government immigration departments recognize the importance of multiple entry visas in facilitating entry." Actually, they don't, except possibly NASA in its outreach to Mus1ims. But companies importing workers do, and not just for facilitating entry, but to facilitate hiring someone who will do the work at the lowest cost. Immigration sees multiple visas for one opening as a peril which, for one temporary visa-holder who gets the job, enables five or a hundred and five other temporary visa holders who don't get the job to disappear into the melting pot.

"The government immigration agency shall notify the applicant promptly after it makes its decision." That implicitly means, "within 30 days," which is virtually impossible in the U.S., where the backlog is over a year. Such a regulation in a trade treaty would require the State Dept to. rubber-stamp applications, without so much as an appearance in person, without interviews, ID document and nation of origin verifications, fingerprinting and police background checks, testing for illicit drugs and epidemiological diseases, ideological and behavioral checks for tεrrσrιsm, English language testing, instructions about laws, customs, and mores, such as the treatment of women, and other investigations where warranted.

The last paragraph quoted above sounds like solid protection, but for the word, "may", which makes it all optional.

A government immigration department may, on a non-discriminatory basis [as determined by China or Saudi Arabia?], and in accordance with existing laws and regulations [are we to believe that a multinational treaty will ever and always remain subject to local laws?], refuse to issue a work visa [whereas we have always reserved the right to refuse legal entry to anyone, for any or no reason, does this enumerate conditions which will justify the enforcement of our immigration laws and protection of our borders against invasion, which may in the future be interpreted as limiting the non-issuance of work visas to those specific conditions?] to a business person where the entry of that person might adversely affect:
(a) [a specific employer with respect to t]he settlement of any labor dispute that is in progress at the place or intended place of employment [as opposed to disputes in general anywhere else]; or
(b) [specific employees with respect to t]he employment of any person who is involved in such dispute [but not other potential U.S. citizen and legal resident applicants who might be passed over in favor of cheaper foreign labor].

However the TiSA causes U.S. immigration laws to be reinterpreted, whether to the advantage of employers or affected employees, it will not go well for other U.S. citizens and legal residents who might want the jobs for which foreigners are to be imported.

Originally Posted by fourrings

We need more activism . . .

YES. That would be more productive than writing a comment on every article on the internet.