Story 1: Obama Trade Promotion Authority Put On Hold For Next President? — A Dirty Deal For American People In 38 Business Sectors Under The Trade In Services Agreement (TISA) — The Coming Legal Immigration Invasion of United States of America! — Videos
SR 379 Fast Track Dead – Until July 31
Milton Friedman – Free Trade Vs Protectionism
Free Trade and the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Trade Deal Deadline for TAA Do Over Extended to July 30
Rand Paul wants TPP fast tracked without READING IT.. Corporate shill disguised as FREEDOM LOVER
Ron Paul Opposes Treasonous TPP Trade Deal
Why Is Obama Pushing The TPP?
WikiLeaks exposes new batch of secret US, EU trade negotiations
Mark Levin: Fast Track trade bill massively expands Obama’s executive authority over immigration!
The Glenn Beck Program Beck Blitz: The Trade Agreement w/ Rep. Dave Brat 06 11 15
The history and geopolitics of trade in services
EU Parliament to vote on EU-US trade agreement on June 10
Truthout Interviews with Mike Ludwig Mike Ludwig on TISA and Julian Assange
What’s in the TISA and why it’s a secret?
Trade in Services Agreement Moves Forward, But How Will It Affect Consumers? Pt.1
Who is Behind TISA? Pt. 2
A Plan Only Banksters Will Love: WikiLeaks Reveals Trade Deal Pushing Global Financial Deregulation
It’s Illegal to Disclose the Details of “Obamatrade”
Congressman Grayson on The TPP and Its Evil Cousin TISA
What the TiSA Leaked Documents Reveal About Negotiations
Rep. Alan Grayson: ‘88 seconds to Debate the TPP’?
Trade Treachery by Alan Grayson
John Birch Society Predicted 10 Steps To America’s Destruction 55 Years Ago
U.S. House votes to buy more time to revive Obama’s trade plans
BY ROB HOTAKAINEN
McClatchy Washington BureauJune 16, 2015
The U.S. House voted Tuesday to give itself more time to try to salvage President Barack Obama’s faltering trade agenda.
House members will now have until July 30 to reconsider a vote on trade-adjustment assistance that failed last Friday. House leaders originally planned to bring up the issue early this week.
The House voted 236 to 189 for the extension, including it in a rule for debate on the 2016 intelligence authorization bill.
The measure is linked to Obama’s bid to win trade-promotion authority to help him pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed 12-nation trade pact that would rank as the largest in history.
While trade backers said the postponement would give them more time to regroup, opponents said it was unfair to delay a vote for so long and to make it part of an intelligence bill.
“This is one more attempt to play games with the future of hard-working families,” said Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, one of the leading opponents of Obama’s trade plans.
Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas said the delay would allow House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio to bring up the issue for a vote at any time in the next six weeks, with no notice. He said Republicans are looking for “the ideal time to muscle through a broken trade policy.”
Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina said that 95 percent of the world’s customers now live overseas and that 1.2 million jobs in her state rely on trade. She said that passing trade-promotion authority, or TPA, is in the best economic interests of her state.
“The allegations that TPA is something for President Obama is false,” she said.
In a big loss for Obama, the House voted overwhelming last week to reject trade-adjustment assistance for American workers who lose their jobs as a result of global trade.
A majority of House Democrats fell in line behind House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who said that voting against trade-adjustment assistance was the only way to defeat trade-promotion authority.
The Senate passed trade-promotion authority, also known as fast-track authority, last month.
Under fast-track rules, Congress could not amend or filibuster a trade pact once it’s negotiated and submitted for approval.
Critics say that would give too much authority to Obama, while backers of trade-promotion authority say it would be the best way to gain concessions from foreign governments at the negotiating table.
Boehner told reporters Tuesday that he has talked with Obama several times, “trying to find a way to move ahead.”
“No decisions have been made, but when we have one, we’ll let you know,” he said.
TiSA: A Secret Trade Agreement That Will Usurp America’s Authority to Make Immigration Policy
Proponents of Trade Promotion Authority (aka fast-track trade negotiating authority), which the House of Representatives will likely vote on soon, have made an unequivocal promise that future trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will explicitly exclude any provisions that would require a change to U.S. immigration law, regulations, policy, or practices. Many members of Congress in both parties have expressed concern that trade agreements might limit America’s ability to set immigration policy. Republican congressmen Paul Ryan and Robert Goodlatte have responded by explicitly assuring members of their party that there will be no immigration provisions in any trade bill.
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has stated in an interrogatory with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and via letter that nothing is being negotiated in the TPP that “would require any modification to U.S. immigration law or policy or any changes to the U.S. visa system.”
For many years, Congress has made it abundantly clear that international trade agreements should not change, nor require any change, to U.S. immigration law and practice…
The Committee continues to believe that it is not appropriate to negotiate in a trade agreement any provision that would (1) require changes to U.S. immigration law, regulations, policy, or practice; (2) accord immigration-related benefits to parties to trade agreements; (3) commit the United States to keep unchanged, with respect to nationals of parties to trade agreements, one or more existing provisions of U.S. immigration law, policy, or practice; or (4) expand to additional countries immigration-related commitments already made by the United States in earlier trade agreements.
Congress’ intent could not be any clearer, but there’s strong evidence to doubt that these assurances will be upheld. If you read these statements closely, you’ll see that most of them concern only the TPP and its lack of impact on immigration policy. But the Trade in Services Agreement, or “TiSA”—another trade deal being negotiated in secret by the Obama administration—is another story; there is little doubt that it will constrain the future ability of the United States Congress to regulate U.S. immigration policy. In fact, deregulating the U.S. work visa system, and therefore opening it up to foreign corporations that provide services (as opposed to goods) is the explicit purpose of an entire annex (section) in TiSA, entitled “Movement of Natural Persons.” The text was heretofore secret until Wikileaks published it on its website last week.
It should be noted that much of the text is a proposed draft for negotiation, and within the text, numerous parts of specific provisions are bracketed to denote which countries support or oppose particular sections or language within sections. But the thrust of the text in the annex is clear. For example, Article 4 is about the schedules (i.e., lists) of commitments that countries will have to put together regarding the “Entry and Temporary Stay of Natural Persons,” and a proposed version of Article 4, Section 2 would prohibit member states from “maintain[ing] or adopt[ing] Economic Needs Tests, including labor market tests, as a requirement for a visa or work permit” in the sectors where commitments are made. (In other words, U.S. laws or regulations limiting guestworkers only to jobs where no U.S. workers were available would violate the terms of the treaty.)
Proposed draft Article 5, Section 1 then requires that “Each Party shall take market access and national treatment commitments for intra-corporate transferees, business visitors and categories delinked from commercial presence: contractual service suppliers and independent professionals.” Section 3 gets more specific about the sectors of the economy where member states will have to allow access to intra-corporate transferees, business visitors, contractual service suppliers, and independent professionals:
3. Subject to any terms, limitations, conditions and qualifications that the Party sets out in its Schedule, Parties shall allow entry and temporary stay of [contractual service suppliers and independent professionals3] for a minimum of [X%] of the following sectors/sub-sectors:
Professional services:
Accounting, auditing and bookkeeping services (CPC 862)
Architectural services (CPC 8671)
Engineering services (CPC 8672)
Integrated engineering services (CPC 8673)
Urban planning and landscape architectural services (CPC 8674)
Medical & dental services (CPC 9312)
Veterinary services (CPC 932)
Services provided by midwives, nurses, physiotherapists and paramedical personnel (CPC 93191)
Computer and related services:
Consultancy services related to the installation of computer hardware (CPC 841)
Software implementation services (CPC 842)
Data processing services (CPC 843)
Data base services (CPC 844)
Other (CPC 845+849)
Research and Development services:
R&D services on natural sciences (CPC 851)
R&D services on social sciences and humanities (CPC 852)
Interdisciplinary R&D services (CPC 853)
Other business services
Advertising services (CPC 871)
Market research and public opinion polling services (CPC 864)
Management consulting services (CPC 865)
Services related to management consulting (CPC 866)
Technical testing & analysis services (CPC 8676)
[CH propose: Services incidental to manufacturing]
Related scientific and technical consulting services (CPC 8675)
Maintenance and repair of equipment (not including maritime vessels, aircraft or other transport equipment) (CPC 633 + 8861-8866)
Specialty design services (CPC 87907)
Construction and related engineering services:
General construction work for buildings (CPC 512)
General construction work for civil engineering (CPC 513)
Installation and assembly work (CPC514+516)
Building completion and finishing work (CPC 517)
Other (CPC 511+515+518)
Environmental services:
Sewage services (CPC 9401)
Refuse disposal services (CPC 9402)
Sanitation and similar services (CPC 9403)
Other
[CH propose: Financial Services]
[CH propose: Financial advisors]
Tourism and travel related services:
Hotels and Restaurants (CPC Ex. 641)
Travel Agencies and Tour Operators services (CPC 7471)
Tourist Guides services (CPC 7472)
[CH propose: Transport services
[CH propose: Other services auxiliary to all modes of transport CPC]
Recreational, cultural and sporting services:
38. Sporting and other recreational services (CPC 964)
In the United States, this means the L-1 intra-company transferee, B-1 business visitor visa programs, and any other applicable visa programs could be used to permit temporary employees from abroad to work in the United States, and no economic needs tests (i.e., testing the labor market) could ever be imposed by Congress. To translate, that means that foreign firms would not be required to advertise jobs to U.S. workers, or to hire U.S. workers if they were equally or better qualified for job openings in their own country. (It should be noted that the L-1 is already restricted in this way, as a result of the United States’ commitments under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATS).) These visa programs are already under-regulated and abused by employers, but since neither the L-1 nor the B-1 visa program is numerically limited by law, this means that potentially hundreds of thousands of workers could enter the United States every year to work in these 38 sectors.
This is worrying and problematic, not because there shouldn’t be any foreign competition from service-providing companies in the United States, but because the competitive advantage foreign companies will get from TiSA is the ability to provide cheaper services by importing much cheaper labor to supplant American workers. They’ll do this by paying their workers the much lower salaries they would earn in their home countries (as they often already do in the L-1 and B-1 visa programs), and the United States might even be prohibited in future from imposing minimum or prevailing wage standards (at present, neither the L-1 or B-1 visa program has a minimum or prevailing wage rule).
There is clear precedent for this. The multilateral GATS agreement, to which the United States is a party, includes limits on the U.S. government’s ability to change the rules on H-1B and L-1 guestworker visas. That’s why when Congress wants to raise visa fees, as they did in 2010, the Indian government cries foul and threatens to formally complain to the World Trade Organization. The U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore trade deals also included new guestworker programs similar to the H-1B and constraints on the U.S. government’s ability to set rules on L-1 intracompany transfers.
The TiSA draft annex on Movement of Natural Persons would also likely restrict the ability of the current and future administrations to continue some of the basic immigration procedures it currently follows, such as requiring an in-person interview with L-1 applicants. The draft treaty might even prohibit common sense legislative proposals that Congress has considered over the past few years, including minimum wage rules for companies seeking to hire guestworkers in the L-1 visa program. This is particularly disturbing since the L-1 visa program has been a primary vehicle to facilitate the offshoring of high wage jobs and for replacing American workers with cheaper guestworkers.
TiSA has been written in secret by and for major corporations that will benefit greatly if it becomes law. If the House of Representatives grants the Obama administration the fast-track trade promotion authority it seeks, the authority will be valid for six years, which means TiSA (like TPP) would also get an up-or-down vote in Congress without any amendments—making it very likely to pass and become law without the necessary democratic deliberations on immigration that such major changes should have. The leaked TiSA text makes it clear that contrary to the claims by proponents of fast-track trade promotion authority, the reality is that those voting for fast track are ceding key powers to make immigration law and policy to an unelected group of corporations and foreign governments.
TPP/TISA Will Give Barack Obama Vastly Expanded Immigration Powers Experts Say
The Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) is an international trade agreement between the U.S. and 23 other countries including Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Taiwan and Israel. The agreement aims at liberalizing the worldwide trade of services such as banking, health care and transport.
TISA is the sibling of the TPP and the TTIP. All are being negotiated in absolute secrecy and it appears that TISA is covered by TPP fast-track authority. TISA has immigration requirements that would allow Barack Obama to play fast and loose with our immigration laws.
Breitbart reported that inside the Obamatrade being debated on Friday, is a chapter that vastly expands Barack Obama’s power over immigration.
The documents released by Wikileaks had not been examined thoroughly but Breitbart brought in experts and they uncovered a serious problem with fast track. Their findings agree with VDare and Immigration Reform who reported on this last week.
TISA (The Trade and Services Agreement) is covered by fast track authority under TPA. The “implication” is that the U.S. intends to be a party to all or some of the provisions of this agreement. The U.S. would be required to “change its immigration laws”, according to Rosemary Jenks of Numbers USA.
Ten pages of TISA deal exclusively with immigration.
Rosemary Jenks, the Director of Government Relations at Numbers USA, said those 10 pages make it absolutely clear that the administration is negotiating immigration.
Since 2003, a Senate resolution said no immigration provision should be in trade agreements. Hillary Clinton voted for this resolution.
The U.S. Trade Representative who wrote TPA told Congress that the “U.S. is not negotiating immigration– or at least is not negotiating any immigration provisions that would require us to change our laws.” That appears to be inaccurate.
On page 4 and 5 of the agreement, about 40 industries are listed where potentially the U.S. visa processes would have to change to accommodate the requirements within the agreement.
There would be no requirement to show there aren’t U.S. workers available for the job.
On page 7 of the agreement, it suggests, “The period of processing applications may not exceed 30 days.”
There wouldn’t be enough time to vet the visas and the U.S. would end up rubber stamping visa approvals.
The application process has a footnote that says face-to-face interviews are too burdensome, yet we know from experience that they are invaluable and the best opportunity to vet the applicants..
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. That means our 7-year limit would have to change and Obama could do it constitutionally if he has fast-track authority.
On June 4th, Immigration Reform also saw red flags throughout the document. In addition to the ones mentioned by Breitbart, they found that the deal creates “a presumption that all spouses of L-1/B-1 visitors who stay for 12 months should also get visas.’
TISA also has “language about “independent professionals” that is very non-specific and it could be an attempt to allow self-petitioning.”
“Finally, the total impact is uncertain because even after the agreement is signed every signatory needs to publish a schedule of industry sectors that they will allow business visitors, contractual service professionals and independent professionals to enter.”
Senator Sessions said that the administration could use the fast-track authority to expand immigration but Paul Ryan said it was an ‘urban legend.” Ryan chairs the House Ways and Means Committee oversees trade. Right now it looks like Senator Sessions was correct.
Barack Obama is a serious and dangerous globalist. If there is any way that he can use these trade agreements to violate our laws and our sovereignty, he will.
REVEALED: THE SECRET IMMIGRATION CHAPTER IN OBAMA’S TRADE AGREEMENT
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. (See below)
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.
Breitbart News’ Matthew Boyle contributed to this report.
On June 3, WikiLeaks released parts of the TISA (Trade in Services Agreement), which is related to the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) agreement. However, it is still a separate agreement and would be ratified separately. One of the TISA annexes/sub-sections they posted covers “Movement of Natural Persons”, linked here: https://wikileaks.org/tisa/
The focus of the Movement of Natural Persons annex appears to be business visitors and intra-company transfers. Most of the proposed agreement deals with standards for visa applications (30-day deadlines for processing, fee schedules, etc.).
There are red flags throughout the document including:
A prohibition on “Economic Needs” testing, aka, labor market certification on B-1/L-1 visitors;
Creating a presumption that all spouses of L-1/B-1 visitors who stay for 12 months should also get visas;
The proposal appears to forbid mandatory face to face visa interviews as burdensome;
The language about “independent professionals” is very non-specific and it could be an attempt to allow self-petitioning;
Finally, the total impact is uncertain because even after the agreement is signed every signatory needs to publish a schedule of industry sectors that they will allow business visitors, contractual service professionals and independent professionals to enter.
Republican leaders in Congress have opposed President Obama at almost every turn, but they supported his push for fast-track trade authority and, through months of meticulous work within their caucus, formed a strong coalition of support around the issue.
Republicans got on board with the legislation because they felt it contained enough safeguards against executive overreach and that ultimately, fast-track trade authority would benefit the U.S. economy.
And, as it turned out, it was House Democrats who turned their backs on the president. In the days leading up to the House’s failure to pass that trade legislation Friday, the conversation was not about Republican opposition to the president, but the resistance from progressive Democrats. And when it came time to vote, Republicans banded together to pass the half of the trade legislation that they generally support, while Democrats banded togetherto defeat the half of the legislation that was intended to bring them on board.
The measure that passed – Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA – grants the president the right to submit trade deals to Congress for an up-or-down vote without any amendments. The White House says fast-track authority is crucial to successfully completing negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the TPP, the 12-nation trade deal currently being negotiated.
The measure that failed – Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA – was intended to aid workers who may lose jobs because of international trade deals. Though TPA passed narrowly, 219-211, it cannot go to the president’s desk without TAA because of the way the legislation was packaged.
Despite the failure of TAA, Republican leaders said they were “proud” of passing TPA, which took months of effort and was by no means guaranteed to make it through the chamber.
“We’ve passed the component that’s been the Republican lift, and that’s getting TPA done,” Majority Whip Steve Scalise said after the vote. “We did it with a strong vote on our side and we made it clear we’re not just going to shut this thing down because the president can’t deliver on his side.”
The groundwork for that successful vote on TPA – which passed with 191 Republicans and just 28 Democrats – began months ago, with the intense outreach and vote whipping from Republican leadership and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan on trade.
The first obstacle was cutting through the confusion. “I’ve been doing this for a long time, and I have rarely seen this much confusion surrounding an issue,” Ryan said last week at a Rules Committee hearing about the trade legislation.
Part of the problem was the alphabet soup of trade acronyms – TPA being the fast-track authority, TAA the workers assistance program, and TPP the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Because that confusion came from both outside the halls of Congress and from within Capitol Hill – where many members weren’t around last time TPA was completed more than a decade ago – the process including educating the public as well as fellow lawmakers.
It began with Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee, which had jurisdiction over the trade legislation, said Rep. Pat Tiberi, chairman of the Ways and Means trade subcommittee. Outreach included voluntary “listening sessions,” where lawmakers were invited to come listen to Ryan, Tiberi and others outline what was in the TPA legislation, and to ask questions about it. Members who were more knowledgeable on trade, Tiberi said – either because they’d done it before or represent a district that is heavily reliant on trade – started the ball rolling.
The Whip’s office hosted 23 meetings with members to speak with Scalise and Ryan. They also often reached out one-on-one with phone calls, official meetings or just informal conversations on the House floor. Slowly, members became educated and the count of supporters grew.
“Early on, it was people who just didn’t know what was in it and wanted to find out,” a GOP leadership aide told RCP. “As things went on, certain members who were pro trade and kind of got it, who were very comfortable to begin with, they were good. As you go on, you’ve got fewer and fewer people that you need to make the case for, so necessarily as we’ve gone through this, the audience has turned more from soft-yes and undecided’s to soft-no’s but who really want to do their due diligence on this before they cast the vote.”
Rep. Dave Reichert, a member of the Ways and Means trade subcommittee and the founder of the “Friends of TPP” caucus – a group of lawmakers in support of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal currently being negotiated – called the individual outreach to members “critical.” He added that they had “absolutely” changed minds.
“One at a time. One member at a time,” Reichert told RCP the day before the vote.
For some members, the listening sessions were about determining whether fast-track trade authority, and the trade deals that could follow, were right for their district, and Ryan and Scalise’s offices worked hard to be able to make those individual arguments. For others, it was a blank slate process and they wanted to just learn about TPA. For some, it was about clearing up what many pro-TPA Republicans describe as “misconceptions” about what the legislation does.
The length of time and number of meetings it took before members came on board – if they did come around to supporting TPA – varied significantly, according to one House Republican aide.
“Some people needed more time and more convincing, and some, once they got a few things set straight were like, ‘Okay, I’m all set, I’m on board,’” the aide said. “It all depended on who they were talking to and what their concerns were.”
There was a prevailing feeling – perhaps not helped by the legislation being shorthanded as “fast track” – that it gave Obama sweeping power over trade deals at the expense of Congress’ role. The pro-TPA Republicans worked hard to counter those points.
The argument boiled down to transparency and accountability. Under TPA, Congress would have the ability to vote down a trade deal that didn’t live up to its standards, and the legislation includes 150 parameters for negotiating deals. Also, while Congress couldn’t amend trade deals, the deals would have to be available to the public for 60 days before being signed by the president.
“That’s slow track – that’s no fast track in my mind,” Tiberi told RCP. “Nothing sits in the public for 60 days around here before the president can sign it, before the president can submit it to Congress in bill form, so that everybody can see, including members of Congress, including the public, including the press, and that’s part of what TPA is all about.”
Supporters also had to contend with opponents’ arguments that trade deals hurt U.S. workers and cost jobs. Ultimately, these were chief among the reasons Democrats blocked the trade package – they wanted more protections for workers.
Tiberi called the lost jobs argument a “bumper sticker” about why trade is bad, and said it’s difficult for those who disagree with that position to effectively counter it.
“This is very hard to get your arms around if you don’t spend day after day after day studying this and understanding this,” he said. “The other side is much easier, and that is trade costs jobs, trade ships jobs overseas, trade is all about losing. That’s just not the case.”
Along with the general questions about Obama’s authority and the impact of trade, those whipping the trade bills had to court members with specific problems. Rep. Steve King, perhaps the most vocal congressional opponent of illegal immigration, wanted to insert language preventing trade deals from being used to change immigration laws. King said he laid out exactly what he wanted to Ryan, whom he met with three or four times to discuss the matter. Ultimately, Ryan agreed to place the language in a separate trade bill and King was a “yes” on TPA.
“I can’t measure how it’s been with others, but if [Ryan was] dealing with everyone else the way he was dealing with me, you couldn’t ask for it to be any better,” King said.
Other times, the specific interests of members weren’t met. Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said he and some of his fellow conservatives had made three very clear requirements to gain their support: a guarantee not to bring up a reauthorization of the Export-Import bank; elimination of the TAA workers assistance component; and a provision that lawmakers who aren’t on the Ways and Means Committee get equal power in rejecting trade deals.
With those three things, Jordan said he and some fellow conservatives were for TPA. Without, they were against. Though they met with Ryan and leadership, they didn’t get the concessions and Jordan voted against the legislation.
“Conservatives in Congress support free trade,” Jordan said in a statement after the vote. “We have been and still are willing to work with our leadership to make this legislation better. Our leadership tried to compromise with Democrats instead of us, and now we know that strategy failed. We stand ready to work on free trade legislation that is both transparent and consistent with Republican principles.”
Majority Leader McCarthy sighed during a briefing with reporters Monday when asked about Jordan’s comments.
“We’ve listened to everybody in the House,” McCarthy said. “You can’t assume every single Republican is pro-free trade. Some people are opposed to it and that’s a microcosm, that’s when you have a national party, I understand that. People are going to have a difference of opinion, but one thing is that inside this House, everybody had meetings numerous times. There are some things that people asked for that are impossible to get to as well.”
Ultimately, the months of work from Ryan, Scalise, Tiberi and others could be for naught. Democrats overwhelmingly blocked TAA – and thus stalled TPA – Friday, and though a second vote could happen as early as this week, it’s unclear whether the White House has been able to push any Democrats to support its position. Republicans are generally opposed to TAA, and though 86 GOP members did vote for it last week, that number is unlikely to increase. Because the Senate passed the two trade measures together, one can’t go to the president’s desk without the other. And while Republicans could take up TPA on its own at a later time, it’s unclear if that could pass the Senate, where the TPA/TAA combo passed with 62 votes, just barely over the 60-vote threshold to break a filibuster.
Despite those question marks going forward, Republican leaders remained confident after the vote.
“I’m very proud of this Congress today,” Ryan said in a press conference. “I’m very proud of the House Republican caucus. I’m also very proud and thankful for the pro-trade Democrats that kept their word and stuck with us in this process. America is being watched by the rest of the world as to whether or not America is going to lead in the world, and I think this sent the right signal. Now the president has some work yet to do with his party to complete this process. This isn’t over yet.”
GOP LEADERSHIP’S LATEST OBAMATRADE PLOY REVEALED: SMALL BUSINESS TAX HIKE THAT VIOLATES GOP’S ANTI-TAX PLEDGE
Establishment Republicans desperately trying to secure the passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which would give President Obama fast-track authority to secure congressional approval of at least three secretive trade deals, are now willing to increase taxes on small businesses in a way that would violate a pledge almost every Republican Congressman has taken when elected into office.
To secure final passage through Congress of a package that would include TPA fast-track authority—which would ensure finalization of the secretive Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) and Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), among other deals—the House would need to pass the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) package that was necessary for Senate passage of TPA. The House voted TAA down 302-126 with widespread bipartisan opposition to last week, but House Ways and Means Committee chairman
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
58%
and his allies in House GOP leadership have pledged that they will try to pass it again early next week. The vote would potentially be on Monday, but more likely on Tuesday—and if there is no vote by Tuesday, it’s unlikely that Ryan will be able to succeed in his ploy to revive TPA.
TAA is a big government program usually favored by Democrats—it increases the size and scope of government, and is essentially viewed by Republicans as a welfare program—so their opposition to it during Friday’s complicated and confusing House vote schedule was not opposition to TAA as a specific concept, but opposition to the full Obamatrade package, especially TPA.
House Minority Leader
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
9%
gave a blistering floor speech against the full Obamatrade deal, causing a Democratic rebellion against TAA—and forcing Ryan to push Republicans to vote for that part of the package.
TAA was originally supposed to be financed with Medicare cuts – which sparked major outrage, and cries of hypocrisy in what would have certainly turned into boldly negative campaign advertisements against Republicans by Democrats this next cycle. But under pressure, Republican leadership, mainly Boehner and Ryan, negotiated with Democrats to remove the Medicare cuts from the financial backing of TAA and instead using direct tax hikes by raising the penalties for misfiled taxes.
“A vote for Obamatrade on Tuesday is a vote to give the IRS more power and more incentives to go after small businesses,” said Curtis Ellis, founder of the Obamatrade.com website, in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News.
Democrats overwhelmingly opposed TAA Friday after Pelosi voiced opposition to giving President Obama fast-track trade authority.
“So while I am a big supporter of TAA, if TAA slows down the fast-track, I am prepared to vote against the TAA because then its defeat, sad to say, is the only way that we will be able to slow down the fast-track,” Pelosi said just minutes before the crucial vote. She concluded: “The facts are these: If TAA fails, the fast-track bill is stopped.”
“It’s pretty outrageous what is called for in this bill that Congress is going to vote on Tuesday – it literally doubles and triples the taxes on small businesses,” explained Ellis.
Ellis spent hours researching this legislation and explained to Breitbart News how it could impact small business taxes if Congress passes the TAA during its vote on Tuesday.
“Small businesses that are already over-burdened with IRS paperwork will be penalized even further if they make a technical mistake on filing informational paperwork,” he said. “There’s a lot of dishonesty going on when the bill is described as raising the fines on tax violations. That’s dishonest because the fines aren’t for people who failed to pay their taxes, the fines are on businesses that for no fault of their own, they forget to fie a piece of paperwork telling the IRS how much someone else owes on their taxes.”
“It’s outrageous that Republicans who complain all the time – rightfully so – about the IRS’s overreach and over burdening small business are actually increasing the incentive for the IRS to spy on people – to spy on small businesses,” he added.
Essentially, as explained by Ellis, any time a small business paid an independent contractor or freelancer a commission or any tips, it must be reported to the IRS with a 1099 form, which a copy is also sent to the contractor or freelancer. If the small business is late in filing this form, then it is fined by the IRS. The proposal Tuesday, as it stands, would double and triple these fines.
“It is the height of cynicism for Congress to plan on paying for a welfare program for unions by increasing the penalties for small businesses,” Ellis reacted.
President of Americans for Limited Government Rick Manning agrees with Ellis about this increasing penalty being a tax increase on small businesses.
“There is no question that raising the penalty on small businesses who commit a paperwork error is a tax increase. It is directly intended to raise revenues, so it can’t be considered anything else. For Republican leadership to ask their members to vote to raise taxes on small business to fund a union bailout that Big Labor doesn’t want is both horrific policy and terrible politics,” Manning told Breitbart News.
This program was so unpopular with both Democrats and Republicans that they removed it from Obamacare.
“This is very similar to one of the ways Obamacare was going to be paid for – as Obamacare was enacted they were looking for revenue to pay for it by increasing the penalties on small businesses who failed to file 1099 forms – that was repealed because it was so unpopular,” Ellis said. “Republicans led the charge in repealing it and now they’re the ones leading the charge to once again increase the penalties in already burdensome paperwork for the IRS.”
Therefore, the Republicans that voted for TAA Friday, essentially voted to finance TAA at the expense of increasing small business taxes – a direct violation of the Grover Norquist tax pledge, which many Republican Congressmen took, pledging to the American public not to raise any more taxes.
Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, a group for taxpayer advocacy to limit size of government, organized the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. The pledge asks all politicians for both federal and state office to sign the pledge, committing themselves to oppose tax increases.
“This is clearly a tax increase – and it’s a violation of Grover Norquist’s no tax increase pledge that most of these Congressmen signed,” Ellis said. “This legislation assumes that there are small businesses out there that will fail to file the 1099 form and will therefore have to pay a fine.”
“It assumes small businesses will be forced to pay the IRS and then it goes further and says ‘let’s make them pay more’ – it doubles and triples the fines,” he argued.
Nearly every elected Republican in America—with rare exception—has signed Norquist’s anti-tax pledge. As such, the 86 Republicans who voted to raise small business taxes through the TAA on Friday most likely did as well.
ATR spokesman John Kartch told Breitbart News he doesn’t think TAA as it’s structured now in the House is a tax and that it does not violate the tax pledge—but that ATR is vehemently opposed to the program and is recommending all Republicans vote against it. That means ATR is in agreement with other groups from a more conservative perspective—albeit for slightly different reasons—on this matter, and won’t back down to help Obamatrade across the finish line.
“The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) is, like most government jobs training programs, a well intentioned, but flawed program,” Kartch said in an email on Sunday night.
“Americans for Tax Reform opposes the TAA program and any increase in funding for it. The TAA is tied to the Trade Promotion Authority designed to facilitate trade agreements that reduce tariffs. Tariffs are taxes. For most of our nation’s history our national government was largely funded by tariffs. The increases in fines for not filing 1099s are not tax hikes. Tax increases come from changes in tax law. ATR opposes the increase in the fines. Not every stupid move by government is a tax. Civil asset forfeiture is a vicious misuse of government power — but it is not a tax. Excise taxes are taxes and the bottom line of the drive to expand free trade is that — even with silly ‘bribes’ to Democrats like the TAA –freer trade driven by tariff reductions will reduce the taxes paid by American consumers and increase the nation’s economic strength. As has happened with every tariff reduction in our history.”
This is extraordinarily significant, since Norquist and his organization did support the TPA portion of Obamatrade, but the public opposition to its TAA portion means it’s unlikely any GOP votes will budge if and when leadership brings up TAA again next week. In fact, if any Republicans change their votes, they’re likely to switch from voting in favor of TAA to against it so not to violate their pledge.
Ellis, Manning and Norquist are hardly the only influential right-of-center figures opposing TAA.
“Regardless of how TAA is financed, it is a wasteful ineffective program that undermines the virtues of free trade,” Dan Holler, Communications Director for Heritage Action for America, told Breitbart News.
Heritage Action and Club for Growth – a conservative group – both oppose the TAA program saying it’s a wasteful welfare program. Heritage Action scored against TPA and TAA, but Club For Growth supported—like ATR—TPA but not TAA.
When TAA went down in the House last week, only 86 Republicans voted for it—and they were joined by just 40 Democrats.
A whopping 158 Republicans joined 144 Democrats to oppose TAA. To pass TAA this week, the only way to truly keep Obamatrade alive without having to go through a grueling conference committee strategy that would likely lead to even more lost votes on both the House and Senate side when they would vote on an eventual conference report, the establishment would need to pick up 92 votes to get to 218.
That seems highly unlikely, given that the widespread GOP opposition and the revelation that voting for this TAA portion is technically voting for a tax increase. That alone is likely to keep the 158 Republican noes in their column and probably add GOP opposition as several of the 86 GOP ayes are likely to change their votes to oppose it as Democrat opposition is getting stronger too. On Sunday, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton—the likely eventual Democrat nominee for president in 2016—urged Democrats to trust Pelosi and oppose granting Obama fast track trade authority until a good deal is assured.
“The president should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
9%
,” Clinton said in Iowa.
If TAA were to pass—which is even more unlikely now that there’s probably not going to be any Democrat or GOP defections into supporting it—then so does TPA. The bills would move on to President Obama’s desk together, giving him fast-track authority to finalize his trade deals without any amendments to his deals by Congress.
Ryan’s office has not responded to a request for comment in response to these revelations about Obamatrade’s tax increases.
The Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) is a proposed international trade treaty between 24 Parties, including the European Union and the United States. The agreement aims at liberalizing the worldwide trade of services such as banking, health care and transport.[1] Criticism about the secrecy of the agreement arose after WikiLeaks released in June 2014 a classified draft of the proposal’s financial services annex, dated the previous April.[2]
Origin
Parties to Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA)
The process was an initiative of the United States. It was proposed to a group of countries meeting in Geneva and called the Really Good Friends. All negotiating meetings take place in Geneva. The EU and the US are the main proponents of the agreement, and the authors of most joint changes. The participating countries started crafting the proposed agreement in February 2012[3] and presented initial offers at the end of 2013.[4]
Proposed Agreement
The agreement covers about 70% of the global services economy. Its aim is privatizing the worldwide trade of services such as banking, healthcare and transport.[1][5] Services comprise 75% of American economic output; in EU states, almost 75% of its employment and gross domestic product.[6]
Once a particular trade barrier has unilaterally been removed, it cannot be reintroduced. This proposal is known as the ‘ratchet clause’.[7]
European Union
The EU has stated that companies outside its borders will not be allowed to provide publicly funded healthcare or social services.[7]
Market access for publicly-funded health, social services and education, water services, film or TV will not be taken. Therefore, the ‘racket clause’ will not apply.[7]
Parties involved
Initially having 16 members, the TISA has expanded to include 24 parties. Since the European Union represents 28 member states, there are 51 countries represented.[8] The number of countries represented in each continent are: 32 in Europe, 7 in Asia, 5 in North America, 5 in South America, and 2 in Oceania. The 24 TiSA parties in order of their income categories are:[9]
The agreement has been criticized for the secrecy around the negotiation. The cover page of the negotiating document leaked by Wikileaks says: “Declassify on: Five years from entry into force of the TISA agreement or, if no agreement enters into force, five years from the close of the negotiations.”[2] Because of this practice it is not possible to be informed about the liberalizing rules that the participating countries propose for the future agreement. Only Switzerland has a practice of making public on the Internet all the proposals it submitted to the other parties since June 2012.[3] European Union published its “offer” for TISA only in July 2014,[10]after the Wikileaks disclosure.
Digital rights advocates have also brought attention to the fact that the agreement has provisions which would significantly weaken existing data protection provisions in signatory countries. In particular, the agreement would strip existing protections which aim to keep confidential or personally identifiable data within country borders or which prohibit its movement to other countries which do not have similar data protection laws in place.[11]
The agreement bans government mandates for use of open source software, stating “No Party may require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition of providing services related to such software in its territory.”[12] The open source word processing application LibreOffice has been deployed by many local governments throughout the EU to save money.[13][14][15][16]
Analysis
A preliminary analysis of the Financial Services Annex by prominent free trade critic Professor Jane Kelsey, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, New Zealandwas published with the WikiLeaks release.[17]
a treaty that would further liberalize trade and investment in services, and expand “regulatory disciplines” on all services sectors, including many public services. The “disciplines,” or treaty rules, would provide all foreign providers access to domestic markets at “no less favorable” conditions as domestic suppliers and would restrict governments’ ability to regulate, purchase and provide services. This would essentially change the regulation of many public and privatized or commercial services from serving the public interest to serving the profit interests of private, foreign corporations.[18]
One concern is the provisions regarding retention of business records. David Cay Johnston said, “It is … hard to make the case that the cost of keeping a duplicate record at the home office in a different country is a burden.” He noted that business records requirements are sufficiently important that they were codified in law even before the Code of Hammurabi.[19]
Impacts of the law may include “whether people can get loans or buy insurance and at what prices as well as what jobs may be available.”[19]
“Amendments from the US are seeking to end publicly provided services like public pension funds, which are referred to as ‘monopolies’ and to limit public regulation of all financial services … They want to freeze financial regulation at existing levels, which would mean that governments could not respond to new developments like another global financial crisis.”[20]
Regarding the secrecy of the draft, Professor Kelsey commented: “The secrecy of negotiating documents exceeds even the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement(TPP) and runs counter to moves in the WTO towards greater openness.”[17] Johnston adds, “It is impossible to obey a law or know how it affects you when the law is secret.”[19]
The visa policy of the United States deals with the requirements which a foreign national wishing to enter the United States must meet to obtain a visa, which is a permit to travel to, enter and remain in the country. Visitors to the United States must obtain a visa from one of the United States diplomatic missions unless they come from one of the visa exempt countries or Visa Waiver Program countries. The same rules apply to Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands while slightly different rules apply to Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.[1]
The United States gives a visitor visa exemption to:
United States Visas were issued to 8.9 million foreign nationals visiting the United States and to 482,000 immigrants in 2012.[2] A foreign national wishing to enter the U.S. must obtain a visa unless he or she is
a citizen of the Bahamas or a British Overseas Territories Citizen from the Turks and Caicos Islands (if traveling directly to the U.S. from their respective countries with a valid passport and police certificate issued within six months of time of travel certifying they do not have a serious criminal record)
There are separate requirements for Mexican citizens.[3]
While there are about 185 different types of visas,[4] there are two main categories of U.S. visas:
Nonimmigrant visa – for temporary visits such as for tourism, business, work or studying.
Immigrant visa – for people to immigrate to the United States. At the port of entry, the immigrant visa holder is processed for a permanent resident card (I-551, a.k.a. green card). Upon endorsement (CBP admission stamp) it serves as temporary I-551 evidencing permanent residence for 1 year.
In order to immigrate, one should either have an immigrant visa or have a dual intent visa, which is one that is compatible with making a concurrent application for permanent resident status, or having an intention to apply for permanent residence.
Entering the U.S. on an employment visa may be described as a three-step process in most cases.[4] First, the employer files an application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services requesting a particular type of category visa for a specific individual.[4] If the employer’s application is approved, it only authorizes the individual to apply for a visa; the approved application is not actually a visa.[4] The individual then applies for a visa and is usually interviewed at a U.S. embassy or consulate in the native country.[4] If the embassy or consulate gives the visa, the individual is then allowed to travel to the U.S.[4] At the border crossing, airport, or other point of entry into the U.S., the individual speaks with an officer from U.S. Customs and Border Protection to ask to admission to the U.S.[4] If approved, the individual may then enter the U.S.[4]
Contrary to a popular misconception, a U.S. visa does not authorize the alien‘s entry to the United States, nor does it authorize the alien’s stay in the U.S. in a particular status. A U.S. visa only serves as a preliminary permission given to the alien to travel to the United States and to seek admission to the United States at a designated port of entry.[5] The final admission to the United States in a particular status and for a particular period of time is made at the port of entry by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer. For aliens entering the U.S. in a nonimmigrant visa status these details are recorded by the CBP officer on the alien’sForm I-94 (Form I-94W for citizens of the Visa Waiver Program countries entering the U.S. for short visits), which serves as the official document authorizing the alien’s stay in the United States in a particular non-immigrant visa status and for a particular period of time.[6] Another type of U.S. visa is lottery visa. 50,000 additional visa numbers are available each year under the section of visa lottery. In the last few years more than 9 million people have participated in the visa lottery[7]
Visa exemption
The United States and its territories
Visa free countries
Visa Waiver Program countries
Citizens of the following countries, linked with the USA by theCompacts of Free Association, do not require a visa to enter, reside, study, and work indefinitely in the United States:
Currently, 38 countries have been selected by the U.S. government for inclusion in the Visa Waiver Program and their citizens do not need to acquire a US visa (but are required to get an electronic authorization if arriving by air or cruise ship[12]) to visit the United States (including Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands):[13]
Visitors may stay for 90 days in the United States which also includes the time spent in Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, or the islands in the Caribbean if the arrival was through the United States.
The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) is not a visa. Rather, obtaining a travel authorization from ESTA is a prerequisite to travelling by air to the US under the Visa Waiver Program.[37] ESTA authorization, once obtained, is valid for two years unless during that time the person obtains a new passport or his/her answers to any of the eligibility questions change.[38]
Other arrangements
Citizens of the following countries and territories can travel without obtaining a visa for the United States under certain circumstances:
Bermuda – British Overseas Territories citizens by virtue of their connection to Bermuda can enter the United States visa-free provided they are bona-fide visitors – no I-94 is required.[39] To qualify, they must not have had a criminal conviction or ineligibility, violated U.S. immigration laws in the past and must not be arriving the United States from outside the Western Hemisphere. In addition, they must present a Bermudian passport which fulfils the following criteria: the front cover has printed on it “Government of Bermuda”, the holder’s nationality must be stated as either “British Overseas Territory Citizen” or “British Dependant Territories Citizen”, the passport must contain one of the following endorsement stamps: “Holder is registered as a Bermudian”, “Holder Possesses Bermudian Status” or “Holder is deemed to possess Bermudian status”.
Bahamas – Citizens do not require a visa to enter the United States if they apply for entry at one of the Preclearance Facilities located in Nassau orFreeport International Airports. Bahamian citizens must not have had a criminal conviction or ineligibility, violated U.S. immigration laws in the past and must be in possession of valid, unexpired passport or a Bahamian Travel Document indicating that they have Bahamian citizenship. In addition to a passport, all applicants 14 years of age or older must present a police certificate issued by the Royal Bahamas Police Force within the past six months. All Bahamians applying for admission at a port-of-entry other than the Preclearance Facilities located in Nassau or Freeport International Airport are required to be in possession of a valid visa to enter the United States.[40]
British Virgin Islands – British Overseas Territories Citizens by virtue of their connection to the British Virgin Islands may travel without a visa to the United States Virgin Islands. They may also continue travel to other parts of the United States if they present a Certificate of Good Conduct issued by the Royal Virgin Islands Police Department indicating no criminal record.[41]
Cayman Islands – Whilst residents of the Cayman Islands, as British Overseas Territories Citizens, are eligible automatically to register as a full British citizen under Section 4(A) of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, thereby able additionally to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver Program, they can alternatively enter visa-free using their Cayman Islands passports. To qualify under the latter method, their Cayman Islands passports must confirm their British Overseas Territories citizenship and be endorsed by the Cayman Islands Passport and Corporate Services Office with a Cayman-U.S. visa waiver, issued at a cost of $15–25 and valid for one entry.[42][43] They must travel directly between the Cayman Islands and the United States and their Cayman Islands passport must also have a validity of at least six months beyond their intended departure date from the United States.[44] If Cayman Islanders elect to enter the U.S. using the Cayman-U.S. visa waiver, they are not required to apply for an ESTA online, since they are not entering under the VWP.
Turks and Caicos Islands – British Overseas Territories Citizens by virtue of their connection to the Turks and Caicos Islands can enter the United States visa-free for short business and pleasure.[45] To qualify, they must not have had a criminal conviction or ineligibility, not violated U.S. immigration laws in the past and must arrive in the United States on a direct flight from the territory. In addition, they must present a Turks and Caicos Islands passport which states that they are a British Overseas Territory Citizen and have the right to abode in the Turks and Caicos Islands. In addition to a valid, unexpired passport, all travellers 14 years of age or older must present a police certificate issued by the Royal Turks and Caicos Islands Police Force within the past six months. All British Overseas Territories Citizens of the Turks and Caicos Islands who apply for admission at a port-of-entry that does not have direct air service to/from the territory, are required to be in possession of a valid visa to enter the United States.
Guam and Northern Mariana Islands Visa Waiver Program]
The U.S. territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands have a specific Guam-Northern Mariana Islands Visa Waiver Program too. Under this program, first enacted in October 1988 and periodically amended, nationals from several additional countries in Asia and the Pacific islands are permitted to enter the Northern Marianas and Guam as tourists without a visa for up to 45 days. Travel is not permitted onwards to the mainland United States, and because of special visa categories for the Northern Mariana Islands foreign workers, traveling between Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands still requires a full immigration inspection.[46] In addition to the citizens of Australia, Brunei, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and the United Kingdom who are also eligible for the Visa Waiver Program (but do not require ESTA for Guam and Northern Mariana Islands), citizens of the following countries and territories are eligible only for the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program:[47][48]
Russia – despite not being included in the new Guam-CNMI visa waiver program, as part of a parole arrangement, Russian citizens in possession of a machine-readable passport, a completed Form I-736 (Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Information form) and Form I-94 (Arrival-Departure Record) and a non-refundable and non-transferable return ticket can visit both Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands visa-free for up to 45 days.[49]
China – Chinese citizens in possession of a machine-readable passport, completed Form I-736 (Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Information form) and Form I-94 (Arrival-Departure Record) may enter the CNMI only visa-free for up to 45 days (travel to Guam still requires applying for a visa in advance).[50]
The typical process for issuing a United States visa, possibly including aVisas Mantis check
Applicants for visitor visas must show that they qualify under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The presumption in the law is that every nonimmigrant visa applicant (except certain employment-related applicants, who are exempt) is an intending immigrant unless otherwise proven. Therefore, applicants for most nonimmigrant visas must overcome this presumption by demonstrating that:
The purpose of their trip is to enter the U.S. for a specific, intended purpose;
They plan to remain for a specific, limited period; and
They have a residence outside the U.S. as well as other binding ties which will ensure their return at the end of their stay.
All visit, business, transit, student, and exchange visitor visa applicants must pay a US$160 application fee (up from $140 as of April 2012) to a US Consulate in order to be interviewed by a Consular Officer who will determine if the applicant is qualified to receive a visa to travel to the U.S (additionally, the officer may also ask the United States Department of State for a Security Advisory Opinion, which can take several weeks to resolve). The application fee is increased to $190 for most work visas (up from $150 as of April 2012) and can be even higher for certain categories. If the applicant is rejected, the application fee is not refunded. Amongst the items included in the qualification decision are financial independence, adequate employment, material assets and a lack of a criminal record in the applicant’s native country.
The immigration visa process is even more stringent and costly. After all processing fees have been paid, most immigration visa applicants pay well over 1000 U.S. dollars to become permanent residents in the United States and may be forced to wait several years before actually immigrating to the U.S.
Visitor visa statistics
Issued B-1,2 visas in fiscal 2013
United States
Visa exempt nationalities
Over 400 thousand issued visas
Over 100 thousand issued visas
Over 50 thousand issued visas
Over 25 thousand issued visas
Over 10 thousand issued visas
Over 5 thousand issued visas
Under 5 thousand issued visas
In fiscal 2013 most B-1,2 visas were issued to the nationals of the following countries (listed over 40,000 visas):[68]
In fiscal 2013 most reasons to refuse a visa were cited as “failure to establish entitlement to nonimmigrant status”, “incompatible application” (most overcome), “unlawful presence”, “misrepresentation”, “criminal convictions”, “smugglers” and “controlled substance violators”. Smaller number of applications were rejected for “physical or mental disorder”, “prostitution”, “espionage”, “terrorist activities”, “falsely claiming citizenship” and other grounds for refusal including “presidential proclamation”, “money laundering”, “communicable disease” and “commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial killings”.[70]
Admission statistics
Number of non-immigrant admissions for tourists and for business purposes into the United States in fiscal year 2013
United States
Over 2 million admissions
Over 1 million admissions
Over 500 thousand admissions
Over 250 thousand admissions
Over 100 thousand admissions
Over 15 thousand admissions
Under 15 thousand admissions
Highest number of non-immigrant admissions for tourists and for business purposes into the United States in fiscal year 2013 was from the following countries (listed over 700,000 admissions):[71]
A visas are issued to representatives of a foreign government traveling to the United States to engage in official activities for that government. A visas are granted to foreign government ambassadors, ministers, diplomats, as well as other foreign government officials or employees traveling on official business (A-1 Visa). The A visa is also granted to immediate family members of such foreign government officials, defined as “the principal applicant’s spouse and unmarried sons and daughters of any age who are not members of some other household and who will reside regularly in the household of the principal alien” (A-2 Visa) and which “may also include close relatives of the principal alien or spouse who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption who are not members of some other household; who will reside regularly in the household of the principal alien; and who are recognized as dependents by the sending government (A-3 Visa).[72]
The most common non-immigrant visa is the multiple-purpose B-1/B-2 visa, also known as the “visa for temporary visitors for business or pleasure.” Visa applicants sometimes receive either a B-1 (temporary visitor for business) or a B-2 (temporary visitor for pleasure) visa, if their reason for travel is specific enough that the consular officer does not feel they qualify for combined B-1/B-2 status.[73] Holders may also attend short non-credit courses. Mexican citizens are eligible for Border Crossing Cards.[74]
Validity period
US B visa validity period
United States
120 months
60 months
24-48 months
12 months
Under 12 months
Validity of visas by nationality for B-1/B-2 visa:[75]
Taiwan — certain nationalities can obtain an online travel authority if holding a valid US visa.
Turkey — certain nationalities can obtain an electronic Turkish visa if holding a valid US visa.
C visa
C-1 visa is a transit visa issued to individuals who are travelling in “immediate and continuous transit through the United States enroute to another country”. The only reason to enter the United States must be for transit purposes. A subtype C-2 visa is issued to diplomats transiting to and from the Headquarters of the United Nations and is limited to the vicinity of New York City.[94]
D visa
D visa is issued to crew members of sea-vessels and international airlines in the United States. This includes commercial airline pilots and flight attendants, captain, engineer, or deckhand of a sea vessel, service staff on a cruise ship and trainees on board a training vessel. Usually a combination of a C-1 visa and D visa is required.[95]
Treaty Trader (E-1 visa) and Treaty Investor (E-2 visa) visas are issued to citizens of countries that have signed treaties of commerce and navigation with the United States.[96] They are issued to individuals engaged in substantial trade activities in international banking, insurance, transportation, tourism or communications with significant economic impact in the United States.[97] The variant visa issued only to citizens of Australia is the E-3 visa (E-3D visa is issued to spouse or child of E-3 visa holder and E-3R to a returning E-3 holder).[98]
These visas are issued for foreign students enrolled at accredited US institutions. F-1 visas are for full-time students, F2 visas are for spouses and children of F-1 visa holders and F-3 visas are for “border commuters” who reside in their country of origin while attending school in the United States.[99] They are managed through SEVIS.[100]
The G visas are issued to diplomats, government officials, and employees who will work for international organizations in the United States. The international organization must be officially designated as such.[101] The G-1 visa is issued to permanent mission members, G-2 visa is issued to representatives of a recognized government traveling temporarily to attend meetings of a designated international organization, G-3 visa is issued to individuals representing non-recognized governments, G-4 visa is for those who are taking up an appointment and G-5 visa is issued to personal employees or domestic workers of G1-G4 visa holders.[102]G1-G4 visas are also issued to family members.[103]
Those working specifically for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization require a NATO visa. NATO–1 visa is issued to permanent representatives of NATO and their staff members, NATO-2 visa is issued to a representative of member state to NATO or its subsidiary bodies, advisor or technical expert of the NATO delegation visiting the United States, a member of the NATO military forces component or a staff member of the NATO representative, NATO-3 visa is issued to official clerical staff accompanying the representative of a NATO member state, NATO-4 visa is issued to foreign national recognized as a NATO official, NATO-5 visa is issued to a foreign national recognized as a NATO expert and NATO-6 visa is issued to a member of the civilian component of the NATO. All NATO visas are issued to immediate family members as well. NATO-7 visas are issued to personal employees or domestic workers of a NATO-1 – NATO-6 visa holders.[104]
The H-1B classification is for professional-level jobs that require a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in a specific academic field. In addition, the employee must have the degree or the equivalence of such a degree through education and experience. There is a required wage, which is at least equal to the wage paid by the employer to similarly qualified workers or a prevailing wage for such positions in the geographic regions where the jobs are located. This visa also covers fashion models of distinguished merit and ability.[105][106]H-1B1 visa is the variant issued to citizens of Singapore and Chile.
The H-2A visa allows a foreign national entry into the US for temporary or seasonal agricultural work for eligible employers under certain conditions (seasonal job, no available US workers).[107]
The H-2B visa allows a foreign national entry into the US for temporary or seasonal non-agricultural work for eligible employers under certain conditions (seasonal job, no available US workers).[108]
Nonimmigrant Trainee or Special Education Exchange Visitor
The H-3 visa is available to those foreign nationals looking to “receive training in any field of endeavor, other than graduate medical education or training, that is not available in the foreign national’s home country” or ” participate in a special education exchange visitor training program that provides for practical training and experience in the education of children with physical, mental, or emotional disabilities.”.[109]
The I-1 visa is issued to representatives of the foreign media, including members of the press, radio, film, and print industries travelling to temporarily work in the United States in the profession.[111]
J-1 visa is issued to participants of work-and study-based exchange visitor programs.[112] The Exchange Visitor Program is carried out under the provisions of theFulbright-Hays Act of 1961, officially known as the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Pub.L. 87–256, 75 Stat.527). The purpose of the Act is to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries by means of educational and cultural exchanges. The Exchange Visitor Program is administered by the Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. In carrying out the responsibilities of the Exchange Visitor Program, the Department designates public and private entities to act as exchange sponsors. Spouses and dependents of J-1 exchange visitors are issued a J-2 visa.[113]
A K-1 visa is a visa issued to the fiancé or fiancée of a United States citizen to enter the United States. A K-1 visa requires a foreigner to marry his or her U.S. citizen petitioner within 90 days of entry, or depart the United States. Once the couple marries, the foreign citizen can adjust status to become a lawful permanent residentof the United States (Green Card holder).[132] K-2 visa is issued to unmarried children under the age of 21.[133] Foreign same-sex partners of United States citizens are currently recognized by USCIS and accordingly can be sponsored for K-1 visas and for permanent resident status.[134]
K-3/K-4 visas are issued to foreign spouses and children of US citizens.[135]
The L-1 classification is for international transferees who have worked for a related organization abroad for at least one continuous year in the past three years and who will be coming to the United States to work in an executive or managerial (L-1A) or specialized knowledge capacity (L-1B).[136]L-2 visa is issued to dependent spouse and unmarried children under 21 years of age of qualified L-1 visa holders.
The M-1 visa is a type of student visa reserved for vocational and technical schools. Students in M-1 status may not work on or off campus while studying, and they may not change their status to F-1. The M-2 visa permits the spouse and minor children of an M-1 vocational student to accompany him or her to the United States.[137]
O visa is a classification of non-immigrant temporary worker visa granted to an alien “who possesses extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics (O-1A visa), or who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry and has been recognized nationally or internationally for those achievements,” (O-1B visa) and to certain assistants (O-2 visa) and immediate family members of such aliens (O-3 visa).[138]
P visas are issued to individuals or team athletes, or member of an entertainment group including persons providing essential support services (P-1 visa), artists or entertainers (individual or group) under a reciprocal exchange program (P-2 visa) and artists or entertainers (individual or group) visiting to perform, teach or coach under a program that is culturally unique.[139] P-4 visas are issued to spouses, or children under the age of 21, of a P-1, P-2, or P-3 alien and who is accompanying, or following to join.
Q visa
Q visa is issued to participants in an international cultural exchange program.[139]
R-1 visa is issued to temporary religious workers. They must have been a member of a religious denomination having a bona fide non-profit religious organization in the United States for at least 2 years.[140] R-2 visa is issued to dependent family members.[141]
NAFTA Professional (TN) visa allows citizens of Canada and Mexico whose profession is on the NAFTA list[142] and who must hold a bachelor’s degree to work in the United States on a prearranged job. Canadian citizens usually do not require a visa to work under the TN status (unless they live outside Canada with non-Canadian family members) while Mexican citizens require a TN visa. Spouse and dependent children of a TN professional can be admitted into the United States in the TD status.[143]
U and T visas
U-1 visa is a nonimmigrant visa which is set aside for victims of crimes (and their immediate family members) who have suffered substantial mental or physical abuse and are willing to assist law enforcement and government officials in the investigation or prosecution of the criminal activity.[144] Subtypes of this visa are U-2 issued to spouses of U-1, U-3 issued to children of U-1, U-4 issued to parents of U-1 under the age of 21 and U-5 issued to unmarried siblings under the age of 18 of U-1 who is under 21.
T-1 visa is issued to victims of severe forms of human trafficking. Holders may adjust their status to permanent resident status.[145] Subtypes of this visa are T-2 issued to spouses of T-1, T-3 issued to children of T-1, T-4 issued to parents of T-1 under the age of 21 and T-5 issued to unmarried siblings under the age of 18 of T-1 who is under 21.
The V visa is a temporary visa available to spouses and minor children (unmarried, under 21) of U.S.lawful permanent residents (LPR, also known as green cardholders). It allows permanent residents to achieve family unity with their spouses and children while the immigration process takes its course. It was created by the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000.[146] The Act is to relieve those who applied for immigrant visas on or before December 21, 2000. Practically, the V visa is currently not available to spouses and minor children of LPRs who have applied after December 21, 2000.[147]
List of US visa types
All US visa types and subtypes are listed below:[148][149]
Immigrants
Symbol
Description
Immediate Relatives
IR-1
Spouse of U.S. citizen
IR-2
Child of U.S. citizen
IR-3
Orphan from a non-Hague country (i.e., not a party to the Hague Adoption Convention) adopted abroad by U.S. citizen
IR-4
Orphan from a non-Hague country to be adopted in the United States by U.S. citizen
IR-5
Parent of U.S. citizen at least 21 years of age
IH-3
Orphan from a Hague country adopted abroad by U.S. citizen
IH-4
Orphan from a Hague country to be adopted in the United States by U.S. citizen
CR-1
Spouse of U.S. citizen (conditional status)
CR-2
Child of U.S. citizen (conditional status)
IW-1
Certain spouses of deceased U.S. citizens
IW-2
Child of IW-1 IB-1
IB-2
Self-petition child of U.S. citizen
IB-3
Child of IB-1
VI-5
Parent of U.S. citizen who acquired permanent resident status under the Virgin Islands Nonimmigrant Alien Adjustment Act
Vietnam Amerasian Immigrants
AM-1
Vietnam Amerasian principal
AM-2
Spouse/Child of AM-1
AM-3
Natural mother of AM-1 (and spouse or child of such mother), or person who has acted in effect as the mother, father, or next-of-kin of AM-1 (and spouse or child of such person)
Special Immigrants
SB-1
Returning resident
SC-1
Certain persons who lost U.S. citizenship by marriage
SC-2
Certain persons who lost U.S. citizenship by serving in foreign armed forces
Family-Sponsored Immigrants: First Preference
F11
Unmarried son or daughter of U.S. citizen
F12
Child of F11
B11
Self-petition unmarried son or daughter of U.S. citizen
B12
Child of B11
Family-Sponsored Immigrants: Second Preference (Subject to Country Limitations)
F21
Spouse of permanent resident
F22
Child of permanent resident
F23
Child of F21 or F22
F24
Unmarried son/daughter of permanent resident
F25
Child of F24
B21
Self-petition spouse of permanent resident
B22
Self-petition child of permanent resident
B23
Child of B21 or B22
B24
Self-petition unmarried son/daughter of permanent resident
B25
Child of B24
Family-Sponsored Immigrants: Second Preference (Exempt from Country Limitations)
FX1
Spouse of permanent resident
FX2
Child of permanent resident
FX3
Child of FX1 or FX2
BX1
Self-petition spouse of permanent resident
BX2
Self-petition child of permanent resident
BX3
Child of BX1 or BX2
Family-Sponsored Immigrants: Third Preference
F31
Married son or daughter of U.S. citizen
F32
Spouse of F31
F33
Child of F31
B31
Self-petition married son or daughter of U.S. citizen B32
B33
Child of B31
Family-Sponsored Immigrants: Fourth Preference
F41
Brother or sister of U.S. citizen who is at least 21 years of age
F42
Spouse of F41
F43
Child of F41
Employment-Based Immigrants: First Preference (Priority Workers)
E11
Person with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics
E12
Outstanding professor or researcher
E13
Multinational executive or manager
E14
Spouse of E11, E12, or E13
E15
Child of E11, E12, or E13
Employment-Based Immigrants: Second Preference (Professionals Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability)
E21
Professional holding advanced degree or person of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business
E22
Spouse of E21
E23
Child of E21
Employment-Based Immigrants: Third Preference (Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers)
E31
Skilled worker
E32
Professional holding baccalaureate degree
E34
Spouse of E31 or E32
E35
Child of E31 or E32
EW3
Other workers (subgroup numerical limit)
EW4
Spouse of EW3
EW5
Child of EW3
Employment-Based Immigrants: Fourth Preference (Certain Special Immigrants)
BC-1
Certain international broadcasters
BC-2
Spouse of BC-1
BC-3
Child of BC-1
SD-1
Minister of religion
SD-2
Spouse of SD-1
SD-3
Child of SD-1
SE-1
Certain employees or former employees of the U.S. Government abroad
SE-2
Spouse of SE-1
SE-3
Child of SE-1
SF-1
Certain former employees of the Panama Canal Company or Canal Zone Government
SF-2
Spouse or child of SF-1
SG-1
Certain former employees of the U.S. Government in the Panama Canal Zone SG-2
SH-2
Spouse or child of SH-1
SJ-2
Spouse or child of SJ-1 (certain foreign medical graduates)
SK-1
Certain retired international organization employees
SK-2
Spouse of SK-1 SK-3
SK-4
Certain surviving spouses of deceased international organization employees SL-1
SM-1
Person recruited outside the United States who has served, or is enlisted to serve, in the U.S. Armed Forces for 12 years (became eligible after October 1, 1991)
SM-2
Spouse of SM-1
SM-3
Child of SM-1
SM-4
Person recruited outside the United States who has served, or is enlisted to serve, in the U.S. Armed Forces for 12 years (eligible as of October 1, 1991)
SM-5
Spouse or child of SM-4
SN-1
Certain retired NATO-6 civilian employees
SN-2
Spouse of SN-1
SN-3
Certain unmarried sons or daughters of NATO-6 civilian employees
SN-4
Certain surviving spouses of deceased NATO-6 civilian employees
SR-1
Certain religious workers (subgroup numerical limit)
Head of state and immediate family, prime minister and immediate family, government minister, ambassador, career diplomat or consular officer, or immediate family
A-2
Minister of state, other foreign government official or employee, or immediate family
Border commuter student (vocational or nonacademic)[150]
N-8
Parent of SK-3 special immigrant
N-9
Child of N-8 or of SK-1, SK-2 or SK-4 special immigrant
NATO-1
Principal permanent representative of member state to NATO (including any of its subsidiary bodies) resident in the U.S. and resident members of official staff; Secretary General, Assistant Secretaries General, and Executive Secretary of NATO; other permanent NATO officials of similar rank, and members of immediate family
NATO-2
Other representatives of member states to NATO (including any of its subsidiary bodies) including representatives, advisers, and technical experts of delegations, and members of immediate family; dependents of members of a force entering in accordance with the provisions of the NATO Status-of-Forces Agreement or in accordance with provisions of the “Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters”; members of such a force if issued visas
NATO-3
Official clerical staff accompanying a representative of member state to NATO (including any of its subsidiary bodies), and members of immediate family
NATO-4
Officials of NATO (other than those classifiable as NATO-1), and members of immediate family
NATO-5
Experts, other than officials classifiable as NATO-4, employed in missions on behalf of NATO, and their dependents
NATO-6
Members of a civilian component accompanying a force entering in accordance with the provisions of the NATO Status-of-Forces Agreement; members of a civilian component attached to or employed by an Allied Headquarters under the “Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters” set up pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty; and their dependents
NATO-7
Attendant, servant, or personal employee of NATO-1 through NATO-6 classes, and immediate family
Internationally recognized athlete or member of an internationally recognized entertainment group
P-2*
Artist or entertainer in a reciprocal exchange program
P-3*
Artist or entertainer in a culturally unique program
P-4*
Spouse or child of P-1, P-2, or P-3
Q-1
Participant in an international cultural exchange program
R-1
Person in a religious occupation
R-2
Spouse or child of R-1
S-5
Informant possessing information on criminal activity
S-6
Informant possessing information on terrorism
S-7
Spouse, married or unmarried son or daughter, or parent of S-5 or S-6
SIJS
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: Qualifying children present in the U.S. who are declared dependents of a juvenile court and who would be harmed if returned to their home country
* Persons with H-1B visas, H-4 visas (as immediate family members of H-1B visa holders), K visas, L visas, and V visas are permitted to have dual intent under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Federal regulations also appear to recognize dual intent O visas, P visas, and E visas.
Visa denial
Section 221(g) of Immigration and Nationality Act defined several classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas.
Grounds for denial may include, but are not limited to:
Health grounds
Criminal grounds
Security grounds
Public charge (charge means burden in this context)
Illegal entrants or immigration violators
Failure to produce requested documents
Ineligible for citizenship
Previously removed from US
The spouse of a US Citizen is almost always denied a visitor’s (B1/B2) visa on grounds that the spouse might want to stay in the United States. However, the spouse of a USC is able to immigrate to the US without much of a hurdle.
Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (also cited as 8 United States Code § 1184(b))[154] states that most aliens must be presumed to be intending to remain in the US, until and unless they are able to show that they are entitled to nonimmigrant status. This means there are two sides to a 214(b) denial. Either
The applicant didn’t convince the consular officer that he didn’t intend to stay in the US permanently, or
The applicant didn’t convince the consular officer that he was qualified for the visa for which he had applied.
An example of a denial based upon the first ground would be an applicant for an F-1 student visa who the consular officer felt was secretly intending to remain in the US permanently.
An example of a denial based upon the second ground would be an H-1B applicant who couldn’t prove he possessed the equivalent of a US bachelor’s degree in a specialty field—such an equivalency being a requirement for obtaining an H-1B visa.
In order to thereafter obtain a visa applicants are recommended to objectively evaluate their situation, see in what way they fell short of the visa requirements, and then reapply.[155]
In 2005, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi (then Chief Minister of Gujarat) was denied a diplomatic visa to the United States. In addition, the B-1/B-2 visa that had previously been granted to him was also revoked, under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act which makes any foreign government official who was responsible or “directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom” ineligible for the visa.[156] Modi is the only person ever denied a visa to the U.S. under this provision.[157]
Exceptions
There are cases when a US visa has been granted to aliens who were technically ineligible. Japanese mafia (yakuza) leader Tadamasa Goto and three others were issued visas for travel between 2000 and 2004 to undergo liver transplant surgery at UCLA Medical Center.[158] The FBI had aided the men in the visa application process hoping that they would provide information regarding yakuza activities in the US.[158]
This page shows Exports as Share of GDP across various countries.
Click on any country name on this page to see a time series of Exports as Share of GDP for that country, along with options for graphing, downloading and validating the underlying data.
For any country, click on the Country Page icon to see a collection of 65+ economic, demographic and societal indicators for that country.
Countries are grouped by region. A single sortable table showing all the countries of the world is at the bottom of this page.
Story 1: Billionaires For Bush and Clinton — American People For Anyone Else — Nurse Ratchet Is Back — Money Cannot Buy You Love — It’s My Turn — Videos
Be it or be it not true that Man is shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, it is unquestionably true that Government is begotten of aggression, and by aggression.
~Herbert Spencer, 1850
This is the gravest danger that today threatens civilization: State intervention, the absorption of all spontaneous social effort by the State; that is to say, of spontaneous historical action, which in the long-run sustains, nourishes and impels human destinies.
~Jose Ortega y Gasset, 1922
It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men.
For more than 70 years, with few exceptions, more Americans have identified as Democrats than Republicans. But the share of independents, which surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans several years ago, continues to increase. Currently, 39% Americans identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling. Report:A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation
Note: 1939-1989 yearly averages from the Gallup Organization interactive website. 1990-2014 yearly totals from Pew Research Center aggregate files. Based on the general public. Data unavailable for 1941. Independent data unavailable for 1951-1956.
One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest – Randal back in action scene
i want my cigarettes
The Beatles – Can’t Buy Me Love (Live)
Hillary Clinton Announces Her Bid For President. Again.
This Aug. 24, 2012 photo provided by FDR Four Freedoms Park LLC, shows the New York City memorial park, honoring President Franklin D. Roosevelt, that has been completed 40 years after the original design was created. The Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park on the southern tip of 2-mile-long Roosevelt Island – between Manhattan and Queens – is being dedicated Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2012, in a ceremony to be attended by dignitaries including former President Bill Clinton and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. (AP Photo/FDR Four Freedoms Park LLC, Paul Warchol)
Clinton touts shared prosperity in campaign kick-off speech
Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Candidacy Announcement Expected on Sunday
Malzberg | Raffi Williams discusses Hillary Clinton’s Saturday “Re-Launch” of her Campaign
Hillary Clinton Launches Presidential Campaign In Nyc FULL SPEECH
Hillary the Scandals
Exposed: Hillary Clinton’s Sex Scandals
THE CLINTON CONSPIRACY – MUST WATCH
Google “Bill Clinton rape”
The Alex Jones Show (1st HOUR-VIDEO Commercial Free) Sunday June 14 2015: News
CNN Poll Shows Hillary Clinton “Shine Has Tarnished” And She Is Losing Support Of Independents
FNC: Hillary Clinton’s Favorability Down 11 Among Independents
Jeb LET’S-JUST-LEAVE-LAST-NAMES-OUT-OF-THIS Bush 2016 Presidential Campaign Announcement
Immigration Protesters Disrupt Jeb Bush Campaign Announcement – June 15, 2015
Conservative Heads Explode Over Jeb Bush Immigration Comments
Mark Levin comments on Jeb Bush’s statements about legal and illegal immigration
PJTV: No Jeb Bush and No Third Parties
Glenn Beck – “Jeb Bush is Hillary Clinton LITE”
Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts
America’s Immigration History
Top 10 Immigrant Countries
Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 1.
Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.
On October 3, 2007, a press conference and panel discussion was hosted by Californians for Population Stabilization (http://www.CAPSweb.org) and The Social Contract (http://www.TheSocialContract.com) to discuss alternative methodologies for estimating the true numbers of illegal aliens residing in the United States.
This is a presentation of five panelists presenting at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. on October 3, 2007. The presentations are broken into a series of video segments:
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2
Jeb Bush Urges ‘Earned Legal Status’ For 11 Million Illegal Aliens
Did Ann Coulter Save USA with funny & brilliant Immigration CPAC Speech?
Laura Ingraham slams Jeb Bush at CPAC
Jeb Bush to officially announce 2016 presidential run
Jeb Bush Finally Announces He Will Run for President
Jeb Bush – Just Another W?
Raw video: Jeb Bush speaks at Politics and Eggs
Diana Ross – Do You Know Where You’re Going To ( Theme From Soundtrack Mahogany )
Diana Ross It’s My Turn
JEB BUSH HAS OPTIMISTIC MESSAGE, FACES CHALLENGES IN ’16 BID
BY STEVE PEOPLES AND BRENDAN FARRINGTON
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Jeb Bush is launching a Republican presidential bid months in the making Monday with a vow to get Washington “out of the business of causing problems” and to stay true to his beliefs – easier said than done in a bristling primary contest where his conservative credentials will be sharply challenged.
“I will campaign as I would serve, going everywhere, speaking to everyone, keeping my word, facing the issues without flinching,” Bush said in excerpts of a speech released by his campaign before his afternoon announcement. Bush was opening his campaign at a rally near his south Florida home at Miami Dade College, where the institution’s large and diverse student body symbolizes the nation he seeks to lead.
In an unusual twist for a political speech aimed at a national audience, Bush, who is bilingual, planned to speak partly in Spanish. The former Florida governor has made minority outreach a priority.
“In any language,” his speech said, “my message will be an optimistic one because I am certain that we can make the decades just ahead in America the greatest time ever to be alive in this world.”
In a video for the event, showing women, minorities and a disabled child, Bush says “the most vulnerable in our society should be in the front of the line and not the back.” This calls for “new leadership that takes conservative principles and applies them so that people can rise up.”
Neither his father, former President George H.W. Bush, nor his brother, former President George W. Bush, was expected to attend. The family was to be represented instead by Jeb Bush’s mother and former first lady, Barbara Bush, who once said that the country didn’t need yet another Bush as president, and by his son George P. Bush, recently elected Texas land commissioner.
Before the event, the Bush campaign came out with a new logo – Jeb! – that conspicuously leaves out the Bush surname.
Bush joins the race in progress in some ways in a commanding position. Bush has probably raised a record amount of money to support his candidacy and conceived of a new approach on how to structure his campaign, both aimed at allowing him to make a deep run into the GOP primaries.
But on other measures, early public opinion polls among them, he has yet to break out. While unquestionably one of the top-tier candidates in the GOP race, he is also only one of several in a large and capable Republican field that does not have a true front-runner.
In the past six months, Bush has made clear he will remain committed to his core beliefs in the campaign to come – even if his positions on immigration and education standards are deeply unpopular among the conservative base of the party that plays an outsized role in the GOP primaries.
Tea party leader Mark Meckler on Monday said Bush’s positions on education and immigration are “a nonstarter with many conservatives.”
“There are two political dynasties eyeing 2016,” said Meckler, a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, one of the movement’s largest organizations, and now leader of Citizens for Self-Governance. “And before conservatives try to beat Hillary, they first need to beat Bush.”
Yet a defiant Bush has showed little willingness to placate his party’s right wing.
“I’m not going to change who I am,” Bush said as he wrapped up a European trip on the weekend. “I respect people who may not agree with me, but I’m not going to change my views because today someone has a view that’s different.”
Bush is one of 11 major Republicans in the hunt for the nomination. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ohio Gov. John Kasich are among those still deciding whether to join a field that could end up just shy of 20.
After touring four early-voting states, Bush quickly launches a private fundraising tour with stops in at least 11 cities before the end of the month. Two events alone – a reception at Union Station in Washington on Friday and a breakfast the following week on Seventh Avenue in New York – will account for almost $2 million in new campaign cash, according to invitations that list more than 75 already committed donors.
Jeb Bush Announces GOP Presidential Campaign
Enters crowded Republican field with the party faithful divided over the GOP’s direction
By BYRON TAU
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on Monday, flipping the switch on an expansive campaign operation he has quietly been building for months.
ENLARGE
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush formally announces his campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination on Monday, June 15, 2015 in Miami.PHOTO:REUTERS
“Here’s what it comes down to. Our country is on a very bad course. And the question is: What are we going to do about it? The question for me is: What am I going to do about it?” he said. “And I have decided. I am a candidate for president of the United States.”
Mr. Bush, who becomes the third member of his family to seek the nation’s highest office, spoke while delivering his official campaign speech at Miami-Dade College.
Earlier, he officially kicked off his candidacy by filing paperwork to run for president with the Federal Election Commission.
The son and brother of two U.S. presidents, Mr. Bush enters a presidential field crowded with young up-and-coming Republican talent and an electorate deeply divided about the future direction of both the Republican Party and the nation.
In laying out the case for his candidacy, Mr. Bush promised an uplifting message about the direction and future of the country.
“In any language, my message will be an optimistic one because I am certain that we can make the decades just ahead in America the greatest time ever to be alive in this world,” Mr. Bush said.
And the former Florida governor boasted about job and economic growth and tax cuts in the state over his tenure.
Jeb Bush is not that far off politically from brother George W., but the two have very different personalities and backgrounds. Photo: AP
Though Mr. Bush has built a sizable campaign war chest and attracted veteran operatives for both his campaign and his independent super PAC—polls show him barely registering above 10% in a crowded primary field.
He’ll also face a Republican primary electorate that has grown more conservative since his brother George W. Bush ran for election in 2000 on a platform of what he called compassionate conservatism.
READ MORE ON CAPITAL JOURNAL
Capital Journal is WSJ.com’s home for politics, policy and national security news.
On two issues in particular—immigration andeducation—Mr. Bush finds himself on the opposite side from many grassroots activists in the Republican Party. Mr. Bush has long supported changes to the nation’s immigration system that would allow illegal immigrants a path to legal status. He also has expressed support for national education standards opposed by many conservative activists.
Mr. Bush also faces the challenge of distancing himself in the voters’ eyes from his family name and legacy. His brother, George W. Bush, left office with sagging approval ratings due in part to his role as the architect of a divisive and unpopular war in Iraq.
Jeb Bush has spent months planning his entrance into the 2016 presidential campaign and he will enter with the most name recognition and money of his GOP field. WSJ’s Jerry Seib explains. Photo: AP
Mr. Bush unveiled a campaign logo on Monday that downplays his family’s last name. The stylized red logo contains only Mr. Bush’s first name with an exclamation point. His father, George H.W. Bush, and brother, George W. Bush, aren’t expected to attend his campaign kickoff.
Mr. Bush has been traveling the country in the past few months banking campaign cash for an independent group that is expected to support his efforts. With his deep ties to the Republican donor class and the business community, Mr. Bush has built a formidable operation and a major war chest.
Once he becomes an official candidate, he won’t be able to coordinate with the super PAC, which will be run out of Los Angeles. Mr. Bush’s official campaign is based in Florida.
Jeb Bush: I cry, I’m introverted, but I want to be president
Third member of the Bush dynasty finally to announce candidacy for Republican nomination
Jeb Bush, former Florida governor, in Tallinn, Estonia, on SaturdayPhoto: Bloomberg
By Joanna Walters, New York and Raf Sanchez, Miami
Jeb Bush will finally end months of speculation and announce he is running for the American presidency on Monday, in a campaign carefully calibrated to portray himself as a natural heir to the family dynasty and at the same time distance himself from his brother George W.
In a key-note interview, he described his father, the first President George Bush, as the “greatest man alive” and said the mere thought of him might make him cry.
But by contrast he was careful to differentiate himself from his brother. “Jeb is different from George,” he told CNN. “Jeb is who he is and his life story is different.”
Mr Bush plans to announce he is running for the White House in Miami on Monday, after months of unofficial campaigning.
He unveiled his campaign logo via social media site Twitter on Sunday, and immediately ran into teasing from the public that it is almost identical to the logo he used when he ran, successfully, for the governorship of Florida in 1998.
The logo is simply his first name in bright red with an exclamation mark and 2016 underneath. His governor’s campaign logo was also ‘Jeb!’
“It’s something that’s been lacking in the presidency, to have someone who’s been tempered by life, and along the way I will get to share that,” said Mr Bush, who at 62 is eighteen years older than Mr Rubio and eight years older even than the departing president.
Polls show the two men, along with Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, as the current front-runners for the Republican nomination.
Mr Bush will make his campaign announcement in his hometown of Miami and will be joined by his wife Columba, a Mexican-born woman who has largely shied away from the public spotlight.
The story of how they met as teenagers featured prominently in a video Mr Bush released shortly before the announcement.
“I need to share my heart to show a little bit about my life experience,” Mr Bush said in the video.
While it has been clear for months that Mr Bush intended to run he has used the time ahead of his formal announcement to raise funds for a superPAC, a nominally independent group that will support his candidacy.
Mr Bush is said to have already amassed a campaign war chest of more than $100 million, according to the website Politico.
He also travelled to Germany, Poland and Estonia to showcase his foreign policy credentials and has been dieting based on the eating habits of a caveman to shed weight before getting into the race.
But he is among the most moderate of the Republican contenders when it comes to domestic policy. Unlike others in his party he has not lashed out at national education standards and has taken a more measured tone on immigration.
Mr Bush, who speaks fluent Spanish, may be able to attract the votes of Hispanic voters who are an increasingly crucial voting group in US elections.
However, the conservative activists who play a major role in determining the Republican nominee may pressure Mr Bush to take a harsher line on immigration.
He has already backed away from his previous support for a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the US for a long time. Mrs Clinton supports such a path, as does President Barack Obama.
Mr Bush has denied he was trying to cut himself off from his famous name, but admitted he had a difficult task to show the man beneath the family.
“I don’t have to dissociate myself from my family, you know, I love them but I know that for me to be successful I’m going to have to share my heart, tell my story,” he added.
“It’s important. It’s something that took a little bit of getting used to for me, personally, to be able to show my heart, because I’m kind of introverted, but it’s important to do,” he said.
He was asked about his father, who turned 91 on June 12 and whether he would be on his mind when he announces his own candidacy to follow in the family footsteps.
“I’m not going to think about that because Bushes are known to cry once in a while. It’s very emotional for me,” he said. “I love my dad. He’s just the greatest man alive,” he said.
Mr Bush said he was looking forward to telling a life story that was “full of warts and full of successes”, where he had had to make “tough decisions”.Most startling is that it completely leaves out the famous family name that has given him a head start in the 2016 presidential race.
Clinton formally launches 2016 campaign with focus on economic equality
Hillary Clinton on Saturday officially launched her 2016 presidential campaign, calling for a return to shared prosperity and asking American workers, students and others to trust her to fight for them.
Clinton made the announcement at an outdoor rally on New York City’s Roosevelt Island, two months after announcing her campaign with an online video.
“You have to wonder: When do I get ahead? I say now,” Clinton told the crowd in a roughly 46-minute speech. “You brought the country back. Now it’s your time to enjoy the prosperity. That is why I’m running for president of the United States.”
The former first lady, U.S. senator from New York and secretary of state is the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 White House race.
Also in the race are Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chaffe.
She lost her 2008 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination to then-Sen. Obama.
Clinton, wearing her signature blue pantsuit, walked through the crowd en route to the stage for her speech.
She remarked that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms are a “testament to our nation’s unmatched aspirations and a reminder of our unfinished work at home and abroad.”
Clinton also drew into focus what will likely be the key themes of her campaign including support for same-sex marriage, wage equality for women and all Americans, affordable college tuition and free child-care and pre-kindergarten.
“The top-25 hedge fund managers make more than all kindergarten teachers combined,” she said. “And they’re paying lower taxes.”
Clinton attempted to portray herself as a fierce advocate for those left behind in the post-recession economy, detailing a lifetime of work on behalf of struggling families. She said her mother’s difficult childhood inspired what she considers a calling.
“I have been called many things by many people,” Clinton said.” Quitter is not one of them.”
She said that attribute came from her late mother, Dorothy Rodham, in whom she would confide after hard days in the Senate and at the State Department.
“I wish my mother could have been with us longer,” Clinton said. “I wish she could have seen the America we are going to build together … where we don’t leave any one out or any one behind.”
Clinton was joined by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and their daughter, Chelsea.
She also was critical in her speech of Republicans, suggesting they have reserved economic prosperity for the wealthy, in large part by cutting taxes for the country’s highest wage-earners.
She also accused them of trying to “wipe out tough rules on Wall Street,” take away health insurance from more than 16 million Americans without offering any “credible alternative” and turning their backs on “gay people who love each other.”
The Republican National Committee said in response that Clinton’s campaign was full of hypocritical attacks, partisan rhetoric and ideas from the past.
“Next year, Americans will reject the failed policies of the past and elect a Republican president,” RNC Press Secretary Allison Moore said.
Republicans also argued Clinton devoted only about five minutes of her speech to foreign policy.
Clinton now heads to four early-primary states, starting Saturday night in Iowa where she will talk with volunteers and others about grassroots-campaign efforts for the first-in-the-nation caucus state.
The organizational meeting will be simulcast to Clinton camps across the country and serve as a blueprint for them all 435 congressional districts.
She then travels to New Hampshire on June 15, South Carolina on June 17 and in Nevada on June 18.
Clinton vowed Saturday to roll out specific policy proposals in the coming weeks, including ones on rewriting the tax code and sustainable energy.
In what was her first major speech of her campaign, she also cited President Obama, Roosevelt and her husband, saying they embraced the idea that “real and lasting prosperity must be built by all and shared by all.”
Holding the event on an island between Queens and Manhattan raised some criticism about its accessibility by vehicle and public transportation.
The campaign estimated the event crowd, whose members needed a ticket, at 5,500. However, the number appeared smaller, and the overflow section was empty.
Hillary Clinton, in Roosevelt Island Speech, Pledges to Close Income Gap
Who Is Running for President (and Who’s Not)?
Mrs. Clinton specified policies she would push for, including universal prekindergarten, paid family leave, equal pay for women, college affordability and incentives for companies that provide profit-sharing to employees. She also spoke of rewriting the tax code “so it rewards hard work at home” rather than corporations “stashing profits overseas.” She did not detail how she would achieve those policies or address their costs.
Mrs. Clinton spoke to the criticism that her wealth makes her out of touch with middle-class Americans, saying her candidacy is for “factory workers and food servers who stand on their feet all day, for the nurses who work the night shift, for the truckers who drive for hours.”
Uncomfortable with the fiery rhetoric of Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat, Mrs. Clinton offered some stark statistics to address the concerns of the Democratic Party’s restless left. “The top 25 hedge fund managers make more than all of America’s kindergarten teachers combined, often paying a lower tax rate,” she said.
Mrs. Clinton said many Americans must be asking, “When does my family get ahead?” She added: “When? I say now.”
In a campaign in which Republicans have emphasized the growing threat of Islamic terrorism and an unstable Middle East, Mrs. Clinton hardly mentioned foreign policy. She did speak of her experience as a senator from New York after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
“As your president, I’ll do whatever it takes to keep Americans safe,” she said, weaving the skyline and a view of the newly built One World Trade Center into her remarks.
For as much as the content of the speech mattered, the theater of it was equally important. For a campaign criticized for lacking passion, the event gave Mrs. Clinton the ability to create a camera-ready tableau of excitement.
The Brooklyn Express Drumline revved up the crowd assembled on a narrow stretch at the southern tip of the island. And Marlon Marshall, the campaign’s director of political engagement, rattled off statistics about the number of volunteers who have signed up and house parties held in the early nominating states. A section with giant screens set up for an overflow crowd stood nearly empty.
But a crowd of supporters and volunteers from the staunchly Democratic New York area does not exactly represent the electorate writ large. The real test for Mrs. Clinton and how the speech was perceived will be in Iowa, where she was to travel on Saturday evening for several events. Iowa, the first nominating state, shunned her the last time she sought the presidency, in 2008.
“I was disappointed she didn’t challenge Obama four years ago,” said Dominique Pettinato, a 24-year-old parole officer who lives in Brooklyn.
For some members of the skeptical liberal wing of the Democratic Party still concerned that Mrs. Clinton will embrace her husband’s centrist approach, the speech went only so far in convincing them otherwise.
“This was mostly a typical Democratic speech — much better than the direction Republicans offer America,” said Adam Green, a co-founder of Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal advocacy group. But he said the speech had not offered “the bold economic vision that most Americans want and need.”
Mrs. Clinton did not broach one issue that liberals are increasingly frustrated by: trade. On Thursday, Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist from Vermont who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, pointedly criticized Mrs. Clinton for not taking a position on a controversial trade bill Mr. Obama is pushing, as well as other contentious issues like the proposedKeystone XL oil pipeline and the renewal of the Patriot Act. “What is the secretary’s point of view on that?” Mr. Sanders asked of the act, which he voted against.
Mrs. Clinton had hardly stopped speaking Saturday when Bill Hyers, a senior strategist for Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, who is also seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, criticized her as vague on trade and other issues. Mr. O’Malley, he said, “has been fearless and specific in the progressive agenda we need.”
If there is one demographic Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is hoping to excite it is young women. It is an obvious connection that her 2008 campaign played down as it tried to present the former first lady as a strong commander in chief.
But on Saturday it was clear that Mrs. Clinton will make gender more central to her campaign this time. In her closing remarks, she called for a country “where a father can tell his daughter yes, you can be anything you want to be, even president of the United States.”
Correction: June 13, 2015
An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of a woman who attended Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech. She is Dominique Pettinato, not Pettin. An earlier version also misstated part of a quote by Allison Moore, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee. She said Mrs. Clinton’s speech was “chock-full of hypocritical attacks,” not hypothetical attacks.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/us/hillary-clinton-attacks-republican-economic-policies-in-roosevelt-island-speech.html
Pronk Palisades 
Obama Trade Promotion Authority Put On Hold For Next President? — A Dirty Deal For American People In 38 Business Sectors Under The Trade In Services Agreement (TISA) — The Coming Legal Immigration Invasion of United States of America! — Videos
Posted on June 20, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Books, British History, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Culture, Education, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Radio, Television, Video | Tags: 16 June 2015, America, articles, Audio, Breaking News, Broadcasting, capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, economic growth, economic policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, Fast Track, Fast Track Authority, First, fiscal policy, free enterprise, freedom, freedom of speech, Friends, Give It A Listen, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hope, illegal immigration, Immigration Law Changes, Individualism, Knowledge, liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, monetary policy, MPEG3, News, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, rule of law, Rule of Men, Show Notes, TAA, Talk Radio, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 486, TISA, TPP, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), Truth, TTIP, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 486 June 16, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 485 June 15, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 484 June 12, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 483 June 11, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 482 June 10, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 481 June 9, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 480 June 8, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 479 June 5, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 478 June 4, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 477 June 3, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 476 June 2, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 475 June 1, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 474 May 29, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 473 May 28, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 472 May 27, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 471 May 26, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 470 May 22, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 469 May 21, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 468 May 20, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 467 May 19, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 466 May 18, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 465 May 15, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 464 May 14, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 463 May 13, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 462 May 8, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 461 May 7, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 460 May 6, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 459 May 4, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 458 May 1, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 457 April 30, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 438: March 31, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 437: March 30, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 436: March 27, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 435: March 26, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 434: March 25, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 433: March 24, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 432: March 23, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 431: March 20, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015
Story 1: Obama Trade Promotion Authority Put On Hold For Next President? — A Dirty Deal For American People In 38 Business Sectors Under The Trade In Services Agreement (TISA) — The Coming Legal Immigration Invasion of United States of America! — Videos
SR 379 Fast Track Dead – Until July 31
Milton Friedman – Free Trade Vs Protectionism
Free Trade and the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Trade Deal Deadline for TAA Do Over Extended to July 30
Rand Paul wants TPP fast tracked without READING IT.. Corporate shill disguised as FREEDOM LOVER
Ron Paul Opposes Treasonous TPP Trade Deal
Why Is Obama Pushing The TPP?
WikiLeaks exposes new batch of secret US, EU trade negotiations
Mark Levin: Fast Track trade bill massively expands Obama’s executive authority over immigration!
The Glenn Beck Program Beck Blitz: The Trade Agreement w/ Rep. Dave Brat 06 11 15
The history and geopolitics of trade in services
EU Parliament to vote on EU-US trade agreement on June 10
Truthout Interviews with Mike Ludwig Mike Ludwig on TISA and Julian Assange
What’s in the TISA and why it’s a secret?
Trade in Services Agreement Moves Forward, But How Will It Affect Consumers? Pt.1
Who is Behind TISA? Pt. 2
A Plan Only Banksters Will Love: WikiLeaks Reveals Trade Deal Pushing Global Financial Deregulation
TAA To Be Forced Down America’s Throat
What is TTIP?
Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership Negotiations
What is the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership?
TTIP Explained: Understanding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
Why is TTIP more than a trade agreement?
TTIP – good or bad? Hot debate between Philippe Lamberts and Peter Chase
TTIP Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership – secret EU/US legal merger
It’s Illegal to Disclose the Details of “Obamatrade”
Congressman Grayson on The TPP and Its Evil Cousin TISA
What the TiSA Leaked Documents Reveal About Negotiations
Rep. Alan Grayson: ‘88 seconds to Debate the TPP’?
Trade Treachery by Alan Grayson
John Birch Society Predicted 10 Steps To America’s Destruction 55 Years Ago
U.S. House votes to buy more time to revive Obama’s trade plans
BY ROB HOTAKAINEN
McClatchy Washington BureauJune 16, 2015
House members will now have until July 30 to reconsider a vote on trade-adjustment assistance that failed last Friday. House leaders originally planned to bring up the issue early this week.
The House voted 236 to 189 for the extension, including it in a rule for debate on the 2016 intelligence authorization bill.
The measure is linked to Obama’s bid to win trade-promotion authority to help him pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed 12-nation trade pact that would rank as the largest in history.
While trade backers said the postponement would give them more time to regroup, opponents said it was unfair to delay a vote for so long and to make it part of an intelligence bill.
“This is one more attempt to play games with the future of hard-working families,” said Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, one of the leading opponents of Obama’s trade plans.
Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas said the delay would allow House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio to bring up the issue for a vote at any time in the next six weeks, with no notice. He said Republicans are looking for “the ideal time to muscle through a broken trade policy.”
Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina said that 95 percent of the world’s customers now live overseas and that 1.2 million jobs in her state rely on trade. She said that passing trade-promotion authority, or TPA, is in the best economic interests of her state.
“The allegations that TPA is something for President Obama is false,” she said.
In a big loss for Obama, the House voted overwhelming last week to reject trade-adjustment assistance for American workers who lose their jobs as a result of global trade.
A majority of House Democrats fell in line behind House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who said that voting against trade-adjustment assistance was the only way to defeat trade-promotion authority.
The Senate passed trade-promotion authority, also known as fast-track authority, last month.
Under fast-track rules, Congress could not amend or filibuster a trade pact once it’s negotiated and submitted for approval.
Critics say that would give too much authority to Obama, while backers of trade-promotion authority say it would be the best way to gain concessions from foreign governments at the negotiating table.
Boehner told reporters Tuesday that he has talked with Obama several times, “trying to find a way to move ahead.”
“No decisions have been made, but when we have one, we’ll let you know,” he said.
TiSA: A Secret Trade Agreement That Will Usurp America’s Authority to Make Immigration Policy
Proponents of Trade Promotion Authority (aka fast-track trade negotiating authority), which the House of Representatives will likely vote on soon, have made an unequivocal promise that future trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will explicitly exclude any provisions that would require a change to U.S. immigration law, regulations, policy, or practices. Many members of Congress in both parties have expressed concern that trade agreements might limit America’s ability to set immigration policy. Republican congressmen Paul Ryan and Robert Goodlatte have responded by explicitly assuring members of their party that there will be no immigration provisions in any trade bill.
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has stated in an interrogatory with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and via letter that nothing is being negotiated in the TPP that “would require any modification to U.S. immigration law or policy or any changes to the U.S. visa system.”
Furthermore, just a few weeks ago, the Senate Finance Committee released a statement titled “TPA Drives High-Quality Trade Agreements, Not Immigration Law: The Administration Has No Authority Under TPA or Any Pending Trade Agreement to Unilaterally Change U.S. Immigration Laws,” and the committee’s May 12 report on the Fast Track bill that was eventually passed by the full Senate contained this relevant language:
Congress’ intent could not be any clearer, but there’s strong evidence to doubt that these assurances will be upheld. If you read these statements closely, you’ll see that most of them concern only the TPP and its lack of impact on immigration policy. But the Trade in Services Agreement, or “TiSA”—another trade deal being negotiated in secret by the Obama administration—is another story; there is little doubt that it will constrain the future ability of the United States Congress to regulate U.S. immigration policy. In fact, deregulating the U.S. work visa system, and therefore opening it up to foreign corporations that provide services (as opposed to goods) is the explicit purpose of an entire annex (section) in TiSA, entitled “Movement of Natural Persons.” The text was heretofore secret until Wikileaks published it on its website last week.
It should be noted that much of the text is a proposed draft for negotiation, and within the text, numerous parts of specific provisions are bracketed to denote which countries support or oppose particular sections or language within sections. But the thrust of the text in the annex is clear. For example, Article 4 is about the schedules (i.e., lists) of commitments that countries will have to put together regarding the “Entry and Temporary Stay of Natural Persons,” and a proposed version of Article 4, Section 2 would prohibit member states from “maintain[ing] or adopt[ing] Economic Needs Tests, including labor market tests, as a requirement for a visa or work permit” in the sectors where commitments are made. (In other words, U.S. laws or regulations limiting guestworkers only to jobs where no U.S. workers were available would violate the terms of the treaty.)
Proposed draft Article 5, Section 1 then requires that “Each Party shall take market access and national treatment commitments for intra-corporate transferees, business visitors and categories delinked from commercial presence: contractual service suppliers and independent professionals.” Section 3 gets more specific about the sectors of the economy where member states will have to allow access to intra-corporate transferees, business visitors, contractual service suppliers, and independent professionals:
In the United States, this means the L-1 intra-company transferee, B-1 business visitor visa programs, and any other applicable visa programs could be used to permit temporary employees from abroad to work in the United States, and no economic needs tests (i.e., testing the labor market) could ever be imposed by Congress. To translate, that means that foreign firms would not be required to advertise jobs to U.S. workers, or to hire U.S. workers if they were equally or better qualified for job openings in their own country. (It should be noted that the L-1 is already restricted in this way, as a result of the United States’ commitments under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATS).) These visa programs are already under-regulated and abused by employers, but since neither the L-1 nor the B-1 visa program is numerically limited by law, this means that potentially hundreds of thousands of workers could enter the United States every year to work in these 38 sectors.
This is worrying and problematic, not because there shouldn’t be any foreign competition from service-providing companies in the United States, but because the competitive advantage foreign companies will get from TiSA is the ability to provide cheaper services by importing much cheaper labor to supplant American workers. They’ll do this by paying their workers the much lower salaries they would earn in their home countries (as they often already do in the L-1 and B-1 visa programs), and the United States might even be prohibited in future from imposing minimum or prevailing wage standards (at present, neither the L-1 or B-1 visa program has a minimum or prevailing wage rule).
There is clear precedent for this. The multilateral GATS agreement, to which the United States is a party, includes limits on the U.S. government’s ability to change the rules on H-1B and L-1 guestworker visas. That’s why when Congress wants to raise visa fees, as they did in 2010, the Indian government cries foul and threatens to formally complain to the World Trade Organization. The U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore trade deals also included new guestworker programs similar to the H-1B and constraints on the U.S. government’s ability to set rules on L-1 intracompany transfers.
The TiSA draft annex on Movement of Natural Persons would also likely restrict the ability of the current and future administrations to continue some of the basic immigration procedures it currently follows, such as requiring an in-person interview with L-1 applicants. The draft treaty might even prohibit common sense legislative proposals that Congress has considered over the past few years, including minimum wage rules for companies seeking to hire guestworkers in the L-1 visa program. This is particularly disturbing since the L-1 visa program has been a primary vehicle to facilitate the offshoring of high wage jobs and for replacing American workers with cheaper guestworkers.
TiSA has been written in secret by and for major corporations that will benefit greatly if it becomes law. If the House of Representatives grants the Obama administration the fast-track trade promotion authority it seeks, the authority will be valid for six years, which means TiSA (like TPP) would also get an up-or-down vote in Congress without any amendments—making it very likely to pass and become law without the necessary democratic deliberations on immigration that such major changes should have. The leaked TiSA text makes it clear that contrary to the claims by proponents of fast-track trade promotion authority, the reality is that those voting for fast track are ceding key powers to make immigration law and policy to an unelected group of corporations and foreign governments.
http://www.epi.org/blog/tisa-a-secret-trade-agreement-that-will-usurp-americas-authority-to-make-immigration-policy/
TPP/TISA Will Give Barack Obama Vastly Expanded Immigration Powers Experts Say
The Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) is an international trade agreement between the U.S. and 23 other countries including Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Taiwan and Israel. The agreement aims at liberalizing the worldwide trade of services such as banking, health care and transport.
TISA is the sibling of the TPP and the TTIP. All are being negotiated in absolute secrecy and it appears that TISA is covered by TPP fast-track authority. TISA has immigration requirements that would allow Barack Obama to play fast and loose with our immigration laws.
Breitbart reported that inside the Obamatrade being debated on Friday, is a chapter that vastly expands Barack Obama’s power over immigration.
The documents released by Wikileaks had not been examined thoroughly but Breitbart brought in experts and they uncovered a serious problem with fast track. Their findings agree with VDare and Immigration Reform who reported on this last week.
TISA (The Trade and Services Agreement) is covered by fast track authority under TPA. The “implication” is that the U.S. intends to be a party to all or some of the provisions of this agreement. The U.S. would be required to “change its immigration laws”, according to Rosemary Jenks of Numbers USA.
Ten pages of TISA deal exclusively with immigration.
Rosemary Jenks, the Director of Government Relations at Numbers USA, said those 10 pages make it absolutely clear that the administration is negotiating immigration.
Since 2003, a Senate resolution said no immigration provision should be in trade agreements. Hillary Clinton voted for this resolution.
The U.S. Trade Representative who wrote TPA told Congress that the “U.S. is not negotiating immigration– or at least is not negotiating any immigration provisions that would require us to change our laws.” That appears to be inaccurate.
On page 4 and 5 of the agreement, about 40 industries are listed where potentially the U.S. visa processes would have to change to accommodate the requirements within the agreement.
There would be no requirement to show there aren’t U.S. workers available for the job.
On page 7 of the agreement, it suggests, “The period of processing applications may not exceed 30 days.”
There wouldn’t be enough time to vet the visas and the U.S. would end up rubber stamping visa approvals.
The application process has a footnote that says face-to-face interviews are too burdensome, yet we know from experience that they are invaluable and the best opportunity to vet the applicants..
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. That means our 7-year limit would have to change and Obama could do it constitutionally if he has fast-track authority.
TISA also impacts privacy laws.
On June 4th, Immigration Reform also saw red flags throughout the document. In addition to the ones mentioned by Breitbart, they found that the deal creates “a presumption that all spouses of L-1/B-1 visitors who stay for 12 months should also get visas.’
TISA also has “language about “independent professionals” that is very non-specific and it could be an attempt to allow self-petitioning.”
“Finally, the total impact is uncertain because even after the agreement is signed every signatory needs to publish a schedule of industry sectors that they will allow business visitors, contractual service professionals and independent professionals to enter.”
Senator Sessions said that the administration could use the fast-track authority to expand immigration but Paul Ryan said it was an ‘urban legend.” Ryan chairs the House Ways and Means Committee oversees trade. Right now it looks like Senator Sessions was correct.
Barack Obama is a serious and dangerous globalist. If there is any way that he can use these trade agreements to violate our laws and our sovereignty, he will.
TiSA Annex on Movement of Natural Persons
http://www.independentsentinel.com/tpptisa-will-give-barack-obama-vastly-expanded-immigration-powers-experts-say/
REVEALED: THE SECRET IMMIGRATION CHAPTER IN OBAMA’S TRADE AGREEMENT
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. (See below)
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.
Breitbart News’ Matthew Boyle contributed to this report.
TiSA Annex on Movement of Natural Persons
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/10/revealed-the-secret-immigration-chapter-in-obamas-trade-agreement/
Secret Immigration Provisions of Trade Deal Revealed by Wikileaks
JUNE 4, 2015 BY KARL FILIPPINI
On June 3, WikiLeaks released parts of the TISA (Trade in Services Agreement), which is related to the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) agreement. However, it is still a separate agreement and would be ratified separately. One of the TISA annexes/sub-sections they posted covers “Movement of Natural Persons”, linked here: https://wikileaks.org/tisa/
The focus of the Movement of Natural Persons annex appears to be business visitors and intra-company transfers. Most of the proposed agreement deals with standards for visa applications (30-day deadlines for processing, fee schedules, etc.).
There are red flags throughout the document including:
http://immigrationreform.com/2015/06/04/secret-immigration-provisions-of-trade-deal-revealed-by-wikileaks/
How Republicans Delivered on Trade Promotion Authority
ByJames Arkin – June 16, 2015
Republican leaders in Congress have opposed President Obama at almost every turn, but they supported his push for fast-track trade authority and, through months of meticulous work within their caucus, formed a strong coalition of support around the issue.
Republicans got on board with the legislation because they felt it contained enough safeguards against executive overreach and that ultimately, fast-track trade authority would benefit the U.S. economy.
And, as it turned out, it was House Democrats who turned their backs on the president. In the days leading up to the House’s failure to pass that trade legislation Friday, the conversation was not about Republican opposition to the president, but the resistance from progressive Democrats. And when it came time to vote, Republicans banded together to pass the half of the trade legislation that they generally support, while Democrats banded togetherto defeat the half of the legislation that was intended to bring them on board.
The measure that passed – Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA – grants the president the right to submit trade deals to Congress for an up-or-down vote without any amendments. The White House says fast-track authority is crucial to successfully completing negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the TPP, the 12-nation trade deal currently being negotiated.
The measure that failed – Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA – was intended to aid workers who may lose jobs because of international trade deals. Though TPA passed narrowly, 219-211, it cannot go to the president’s desk without TAA because of the way the legislation was packaged.
Despite the failure of TAA, Republican leaders said they were “proud” of passing TPA, which took months of effort and was by no means guaranteed to make it through the chamber.
“We’ve passed the component that’s been the Republican lift, and that’s getting TPA done,” Majority Whip Steve Scalise said after the vote. “We did it with a strong vote on our side and we made it clear we’re not just going to shut this thing down because the president can’t deliver on his side.”
The groundwork for that successful vote on TPA – which passed with 191 Republicans and just 28 Democrats – began months ago, with the intense outreach and vote whipping from Republican leadership and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan on trade.
The first obstacle was cutting through the confusion. “I’ve been doing this for a long time, and I have rarely seen this much confusion surrounding an issue,” Ryan said last week at a Rules Committee hearing about the trade legislation.
Part of the problem was the alphabet soup of trade acronyms – TPA being the fast-track authority, TAA the workers assistance program, and TPP the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Because that confusion came from both outside the halls of Congress and from within Capitol Hill – where many members weren’t around last time TPA was completed more than a decade ago – the process including educating the public as well as fellow lawmakers.
It began with Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee, which had jurisdiction over the trade legislation, said Rep. Pat Tiberi, chairman of the Ways and Means trade subcommittee. Outreach included voluntary “listening sessions,” where lawmakers were invited to come listen to Ryan, Tiberi and others outline what was in the TPA legislation, and to ask questions about it. Members who were more knowledgeable on trade, Tiberi said – either because they’d done it before or represent a district that is heavily reliant on trade – started the ball rolling.
The Whip’s office hosted 23 meetings with members to speak with Scalise and Ryan. They also often reached out one-on-one with phone calls, official meetings or just informal conversations on the House floor. Slowly, members became educated and the count of supporters grew.
“Early on, it was people who just didn’t know what was in it and wanted to find out,” a GOP leadership aide told RCP. “As things went on, certain members who were pro trade and kind of got it, who were very comfortable to begin with, they were good. As you go on, you’ve got fewer and fewer people that you need to make the case for, so necessarily as we’ve gone through this, the audience has turned more from soft-yes and undecided’s to soft-no’s but who really want to do their due diligence on this before they cast the vote.”
Rep. Dave Reichert, a member of the Ways and Means trade subcommittee and the founder of the “Friends of TPP” caucus – a group of lawmakers in support of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal currently being negotiated – called the individual outreach to members “critical.” He added that they had “absolutely” changed minds.
“One at a time. One member at a time,” Reichert told RCP the day before the vote.
For some members, the listening sessions were about determining whether fast-track trade authority, and the trade deals that could follow, were right for their district, and Ryan and Scalise’s offices worked hard to be able to make those individual arguments. For others, it was a blank slate process and they wanted to just learn about TPA. For some, it was about clearing up what many pro-TPA Republicans describe as “misconceptions” about what the legislation does.
The length of time and number of meetings it took before members came on board – if they did come around to supporting TPA – varied significantly, according to one House Republican aide.
“Some people needed more time and more convincing, and some, once they got a few things set straight were like, ‘Okay, I’m all set, I’m on board,’” the aide said. “It all depended on who they were talking to and what their concerns were.”
There was a prevailing feeling – perhaps not helped by the legislation being shorthanded as “fast track” – that it gave Obama sweeping power over trade deals at the expense of Congress’ role. The pro-TPA Republicans worked hard to counter those points.
The argument boiled down to transparency and accountability. Under TPA, Congress would have the ability to vote down a trade deal that didn’t live up to its standards, and the legislation includes 150 parameters for negotiating deals. Also, while Congress couldn’t amend trade deals, the deals would have to be available to the public for 60 days before being signed by the president.
“That’s slow track – that’s no fast track in my mind,” Tiberi told RCP. “Nothing sits in the public for 60 days around here before the president can sign it, before the president can submit it to Congress in bill form, so that everybody can see, including members of Congress, including the public, including the press, and that’s part of what TPA is all about.”
Supporters also had to contend with opponents’ arguments that trade deals hurt U.S. workers and cost jobs. Ultimately, these were chief among the reasons Democrats blocked the trade package – they wanted more protections for workers.
Tiberi called the lost jobs argument a “bumper sticker” about why trade is bad, and said it’s difficult for those who disagree with that position to effectively counter it.
“This is very hard to get your arms around if you don’t spend day after day after day studying this and understanding this,” he said. “The other side is much easier, and that is trade costs jobs, trade ships jobs overseas, trade is all about losing. That’s just not the case.”
Along with the general questions about Obama’s authority and the impact of trade, those whipping the trade bills had to court members with specific problems. Rep. Steve King, perhaps the most vocal congressional opponent of illegal immigration, wanted to insert language preventing trade deals from being used to change immigration laws. King said he laid out exactly what he wanted to Ryan, whom he met with three or four times to discuss the matter. Ultimately, Ryan agreed to place the language in a separate trade bill and King was a “yes” on TPA.
“I can’t measure how it’s been with others, but if [Ryan was] dealing with everyone else the way he was dealing with me, you couldn’t ask for it to be any better,” King said.
Other times, the specific interests of members weren’t met. Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said he and some of his fellow conservatives had made three very clear requirements to gain their support: a guarantee not to bring up a reauthorization of the Export-Import bank; elimination of the TAA workers assistance component; and a provision that lawmakers who aren’t on the Ways and Means Committee get equal power in rejecting trade deals.
With those three things, Jordan said he and some fellow conservatives were for TPA. Without, they were against. Though they met with Ryan and leadership, they didn’t get the concessions and Jordan voted against the legislation.
“Conservatives in Congress support free trade,” Jordan said in a statement after the vote. “We have been and still are willing to work with our leadership to make this legislation better. Our leadership tried to compromise with Democrats instead of us, and now we know that strategy failed. We stand ready to work on free trade legislation that is both transparent and consistent with Republican principles.”
Majority Leader McCarthy sighed during a briefing with reporters Monday when asked about Jordan’s comments.
“We’ve listened to everybody in the House,” McCarthy said. “You can’t assume every single Republican is pro-free trade. Some people are opposed to it and that’s a microcosm, that’s when you have a national party, I understand that. People are going to have a difference of opinion, but one thing is that inside this House, everybody had meetings numerous times. There are some things that people asked for that are impossible to get to as well.”
Ultimately, the months of work from Ryan, Scalise, Tiberi and others could be for naught. Democrats overwhelmingly blocked TAA – and thus stalled TPA – Friday, and though a second vote could happen as early as this week, it’s unclear whether the White House has been able to push any Democrats to support its position. Republicans are generally opposed to TAA, and though 86 GOP members did vote for it last week, that number is unlikely to increase. Because the Senate passed the two trade measures together, one can’t go to the president’s desk without the other. And while Republicans could take up TPA on its own at a later time, it’s unclear if that could pass the Senate, where the TPA/TAA combo passed with 62 votes, just barely over the 60-vote threshold to break a filibuster.
Despite those question marks going forward, Republican leaders remained confident after the vote.
“I’m very proud of this Congress today,” Ryan said in a press conference. “I’m very proud of the House Republican caucus. I’m also very proud and thankful for the pro-trade Democrats that kept their word and stuck with us in this process. America is being watched by the rest of the world as to whether or not America is going to lead in the world, and I think this sent the right signal. Now the president has some work yet to do with his party to complete this process. This isn’t over yet.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/16/how_republicans_delivered_on_trade_promotion_authority.html
//
// g?c=a+f+c:(g+=f.length,f=a.indexOf(“&”,g),c=0<=f?a.substring(0,g)+c+a.substring(f):a.substring(0,g)+c)}return 2E3<c.length?void 0!==d?r(a,b,d,void 0,e):a:c};var ba=function(){var a=/[&\?]exk=([^& ]+)/.exec(t.location.href);return a&&2==a.length?a[1]:null};var ca=function(a){var b=a.toString();a.name&&-1==b.indexOf(a.name)&&(b+=”: “+a.name);a.message&&-1==b.indexOf(a.message)&&(b+=”: “+a.message);if(a.stack){a=a.stack;var c=b;try{-1==a.indexOf(c)&&(a=c+”\n”+a);for(var d;a!=d;)d=a,a=a.replace(/((https?:\/..*\/)[^\/:]*:\d+(?:.|\n)*)\2/,”$1″);b=a.replace(/\n */g,”\n”)}catch(e){b=c}}return b},u=function(a,b){a.google_image_requests||(a.google_image_requests=[]);var c=a.document.createElement(“img”);c.src=b;a.google_image_requests.push(c)};var v=document,t=window;var da=String.prototype.trim?function(a){return a.trim()}:function(a){return a.replace(/^[\s\xa0]+|[\s\xa0]+$/g,””)},ea=function(a,b){return ab?1:0};var w=null,fa=function(a,b){for(var c in a)Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(a,c)&&b.call(null,a[c],c,a)};function x(a){return”function”==typeof encodeURIComponent?encodeURIComponent(a):escape(a)}var ga=function(){if(!v.body)return!1;if(!w){var a=v.createElement(“iframe”);a.style.display=”none”;a.id=”anonIframe”;w=a;v.body.appendChild(a)}return!0},ha={};var ia=!0,ja={},ma=function(a,b,c,d){var e=ka,f,g=ia;try{f=b()}catch(k){try{var q=ca(k);b=””;k.fileName&&(b=k.fileName);var E=-1;k.lineNumber&&(E=k.lineNumber);g=e(a,q,b,E,c)}catch(l){try{var y=ca(l);a=””;l.fileName&&(a=l.fileName);c=-1;l.lineNumber&&(c=l.lineNumber);ka(“pAR”,y,a,c,void 0,void 0)}catch(ya){la({context:”mRE”,msg:ya.toString()+”\n”+(ya.stack||””)},void 0)}}if(!g)throw k;}finally{if(d)try{d()}catch(ub){}}return f},ka=function(a,b,c,d,e,f){var g={};if(e)try{e(g)}catch(k){}g.context=a;g.msg=b.substring(0,512);c&&(g.file=c);0<d&&(g.line=d.toString());g.url=v.URL.substring(0,512);g.ref=v.referrer.substring(0,512);na(g);la(g,f);return ia},la=function(a,b){try{if(Math.random()c?Math.max(0,a.length+c):c;if(n(a))return n(b)&&1==b.length?a.indexOf(b,c):-1;for(;c<a.length;c++)if(c in a&&a[c]===b)return c;return-1},qa=A.map?function(a,b,c){return A.map.call(a,b,c)}:function(a,b,c){for(var d=a.length,e=Array(d),f=n(a)?a.split(“”):a,g=0;g<d;g++)g in f&&(e[g]=b.call(c,f[g],g,a));return e};var ra=function(a,b){for(var c in a)b.call(void 0,a[c],c,a)},sa=function(a){var b=arguments.length;if(1==b&&”array”==m(arguments[0]))return sa.apply(null,arguments[0]);for(var c={},d=0;dparseFloat(a))?String(b):a}(),Ca={},Da=function(a){if(!Ca[a]){for(var b=0,c=da(String(Ba)).split(“.”),d=da(String(a)).split(“.”),e=Math.max(c.length,d.length),f=0;0==b&&f<e;f++){var g=c[f]||””,k=d[f]||””,q=RegExp(“(\\d*)(\\D*)”,”g”),E=RegExp(“(\\d*)(\\D*)”,”g”);do{var l=q.exec(g)||[“”,””,””],y=E.exec(k)||[“”,””,””];if(0==l[0].length&&0==y[0].length)break;b=ea(0==l[1].length?0:parseInt(l[1],10),0==y[1].length?0:parseInt(y[1],10))||ea(0==l[2].length,0==y[2].length)||ea(l[2],y[2])}while(0==b)}Ca[a]=0<=b}},Ea=h.document,Fa=Aa(),Ga=!Ea||!D||!Fa&&C()?void 0:Fa||(“CSS1Compat”==Ea.compatMode?parseInt(Ba,10):5);var Ha={i:947190538,j:947190541,l:947190542,g:79463068,h:79463069},Ia={f:”ud=1″,o:”ts=1″,m:”sc=1″,c:”gz=1”};if(v&&v.URL)var F=v.URL,ia=!(F&&(0<F.indexOf(“?google_debug”)||0<F.indexOf(“&google_debug”)||0=b)){var d=0,e=function(){a();d++;db;){if(c.google_osd_static_frame)return c;if(c.aswift_0&&(!a||c.aswift_0.google_osd_static_frame))return c.aswift_0;b++;c=c!=c.parent?c.parent:null}}catch(e){}return null},Na=function(a,b,c,d,e){if(10<La)t.clearInterval(L);else if(++La,t.postMessage&&(b.b||b.a)){var f=Ma(!0);if(f){var g={};I(b,g);g[0]=”goog_request_monitoring”;g[6]=a;g[16]=c;d&&d.length&&(g[17]=d.join(“,”));e&&(g[19]=e);try{var k=K(g);f.postMessage(k,”*”)}catch(q){}}}},Oa=function(a){var b=Ma(!1),c=!b;!b&&t&&(b=t.parent);if(b&&b.postMessage)try{b.postMessage(a,”*”),c&&t.postMessage(a,”*”)}catch(d){}};sa(“area base br col command embed hr img input keygen link meta param source track wbr”.split(” “));var M=function(a,b){this.width=a;this.height=b};var Pa;if(!(Pa=!wa&&!D)){var Qa;if(Qa=D)Qa=D&&(C()||9<=Ga);Pa=Qa}Pa||wa&&Da(“1.9.1”);D&&Da(“9″);D&&Da(12);var Sa=function(){var a=t.parent&&t.parent!=t,b=a&&0<=”//tpc.googlesyndication.com”.indexOf(t.location.host);if(a&&t.name&&0==t.name.indexOf(“google_ads_iframe”)||b){var c;a=t||t;try{var d;if(a.document&&!a.document.body)d=new M(-1,-1);else{var e=(a||window).document,f=”CSS1Compat”==e.compatMode?e.documentElement:e.body;d=new M(f.clientWidth,f.clientHeight)}c=d}catch(g){c=new M(-12245933,-12245933)}return Ra(c)}c=t.document.getElementsByTagName(“SCRIPT”);return 0<c.length&&(c=c[c.length-1],c.parentElement&&c.parentElement.id&&0<c.parentElement.id.indexOf(“_ad_container”))?Ra(void 0,c.parentElement):null},Ra=function(a,b){var c=Ta(“IMG”,a,b);return c||(c=Ta(“IFRAME”,a,b))?c:(c=Ta(“OBJECT”,a,b))?c:null},Ta=function(a,b,c){var d=document;c=c||d;d=a&&”*”!=a?a.toUpperCase():””;c=c.querySelectorAll&&c.querySelector&&d?c.querySelectorAll(d+””):c.getElementsByTagName(d||”*”);for(d=0;d<c.length;d++){var e=c[d];if(“OBJECT”==a)a:{var f=e.getAttribute(“height”);if(null!=f&&0<f&&0==e.clientHeight)for(var f=e.children,g=0;g<f.length;g++){var k=f[g];if(“OBJECT”==k.nodeName||”EMBED”==k.nodeName){e=k;break a}}}f=e.clientHeight;g=e.clientWidth;if(k=b)k=new M(g,f),k=Math.abs(b.width-k.width)<.1*b.width&&Math.abs(b.height-k.height)<.1*b.height;if(k||!b&&10<f&&10<g)return e}return null};var Ua,N=0,O=””,P=!1,Q=!1,R=!1,Va=!0,Wa=!1,S=!1,T=0,Xa=[],J=null,Ya=””,Za=[],$a=null,ab=[],bb=!1,U=””,V=””,cb=(new Date).getTime(),db=!1,eb=””,fb=!1,gb=[“1″,”0″,”3″],W=0,X=0,hb=0,ib=””,jb=function(a,b,c){P&&(Va||3!=(c||3)||S)&&Y(a,b,!0);(R||Q&&Wa)&&Y(a,b)},kb=function(){var a=$a;return a?2!=a():!0},Y=function(a,b,c){if((b=b||Ya)&&!bb&&(2==X||c)&&kb()){var d;d=c?”osdim”:R?”osd2″:”osdtos”;var e=[“//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/activeview”,”?id=”,d];”osd2″==d&&Q&&Wa&&e.push(“&ts=1”);O&&e.push(“&avi=”,O);Ua&&e.push(“&cid=”,Ua);e.push(“&ti=1”);e.push(“&”,b);e.push(“&uc=”+hb);db?e.push(“&tgt=”+eb):e.push(“&tgt=nf”);e.push(“&cl=”+(fb?1:0));b=e.join(“”);for(d=0;d<Za.length;d++){try{var f=Za[d]()}catch(g){}e=”max_length”;2<=f.length&&(3==f.length&&(e=f[2]),b=r(b,x(f[0]),x(f[1]),e))}2E3<b.length&&(b=b.substring(0,2E3));u(a,b);c?P=!1:bb=!0}},Z=function(a,b){if(U){try{var c=r(U,”vi”,a);ga()&&u(w.contentWindow,c)}catch(d){}0<=pa(gb,a)&&(U=””);var c=b||Ya,e;e=r(“//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/gen_204?id=sldb”,”avi”,O);e=r(e,”vi”,a);c&&(e+=”&”+c);try{u(t,e)}catch(f){}}},lb=function(){Z(“-1”)},nb=function(a){if(a&&a.data&&n(a.data)){var b;var c=a.data;if(n(c)){b={};for(var c=c.split(“\n”),d=0;d=e)){var f=Number(c[d].substr(0,e)),e=c[d].substr(e+1);switch(f){case 5:case 8:case 11:case 15:case 16:case 18:e=”true”==e;break;case 4:case 7:case 6:case 14:e=Number(e);break;case 3:case 19:if(“function”==m(decodeURIComponent))try{e=decodeURIComponent(e)}catch(g){throw Error(“Error: URI malformed: “+e);}break;case 17:e=qa(decodeURIComponent(e).split(“,”),Number)}b[f]=e}}b=b[0]?b:null}else b=null;if(b&&(c=new H(b[4],b[12]),J&&J.match(c))){for(c=0;cW&&!Q&&2==X&&ob(t,”osd2″,”hs=”+W)},qb=function(){var a={};I(J,a);a[0]=”goog_dom_content_loaded”;var b=K(a);try{Ja(function(){Oa(b)},10,”osd_listener::ldcl_int”)}catch(c){}},rb=function(){var a={};I(J,a);a[0]=”goog_creative_loaded”;var b=K(a);Ja(function(){Oa(b)},10,”osd_listener::lcel_int”);fb=!0},sb=function(a){if(n(a)){a=a.split(“&”);for(var b=a.length-1;0<=b;b–){var c=a[b],d=Ia;c==d.f?(Va=!1,a.splice(b,1)):c==d.c&&(T=1,a.splice(b,1))}ib=a.join(“&”)}},tb=function(){if(!db){var a=Sa();a&&(db=!0,eb=a.tagName,a.complete||a.naturalWidth?rb():G(a,”load”,rb,”osd_listener::creative_load”))}};p(“osdlfm”,z(“osd_listener::init”,function(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,k,q,E){N=a;U=b;V=d;P=f;Ua=E;k&&sb(k);Q=g&&f;1!=q&&2!=q&&3!=q||Xa.push(Ha[“MRC_TEST_”+q]);J=new H(e,ba());G(t,”load”,lb,”osd_listener::load”);G(t,”message”,nb,”osd_listener::message”);O=c||””;G(t,”unload”,pb,”osd_listener::unload”);var l=t.document;!l.readyState||”complete”!=l.readyState&&”loaded”!=l.readyState?(“msie”in ha?ha.msie:ha.msie=-1!=navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase().indexOf(“msie”))&&!window.opera?G(l,”readystatechange”,function(){“complete”!=l.readyState&&”loaded”!=l.readyState||qb()},”osd_listener::rsc”):G(l,”DOMContentLoaded”,qb,”osd_listener::dcl”):qb();-1==N?X=f?3:1:-2==N?X=3:0
GOP LEADERSHIP’S LATEST OBAMATRADE PLOY REVEALED: SMALL BUSINESS TAX HIKE THAT VIOLATES GOP’S ANTI-TAX PLEDGE
Establishment Republicans desperately trying to secure the passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which would give President Obama fast-track authority to secure congressional approval of at least three secretive trade deals, are now willing to increase taxes on small businesses in a way that would violate a pledge almost every Republican Congressman has taken when elected into office.
To secure final passage through Congress of a package that would include TPA fast-track authority—which would ensure finalization of the secretive Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) and Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), among other deals—the House would need to pass the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) package that was necessary for Senate passage of TPA. The House voted TAA down 302-126 with widespread bipartisan opposition to last week, but House Ways and Means Committee chairman
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
and his allies in House GOP leadership have pledged that they will try to pass it again early next week. The vote would potentially be on Monday, but more likely on Tuesday—and if there is no vote by Tuesday, it’s unlikely that Ryan will be able to succeed in his ploy to revive TPA.
TAA is a big government program usually favored by Democrats—it increases the size and scope of government, and is essentially viewed by Republicans as a welfare program—so their opposition to it during Friday’s complicated and confusing House vote schedule was not opposition to TAA as a specific concept, but opposition to the full Obamatrade package, especially TPA.
House Minority Leader
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
gave a blistering floor speech against the full Obamatrade deal, causing a Democratic rebellion against TAA—and forcing Ryan to push Republicans to vote for that part of the package.
TAA was originally supposed to be financed with Medicare cuts – which sparked major outrage, and cries of hypocrisy in what would have certainly turned into boldly negative campaign advertisements against Republicans by Democrats this next cycle. But under pressure, Republican leadership, mainly Boehner and Ryan, negotiated with Democrats to remove the Medicare cuts from the financial backing of TAA and instead using direct tax hikes by raising the penalties for misfiled taxes.
“A vote for Obamatrade on Tuesday is a vote to give the IRS more power and more incentives to go after small businesses,” said Curtis Ellis, founder of the Obamatrade.com website, in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News.
Democrats overwhelmingly opposed TAA Friday after Pelosi voiced opposition to giving President Obama fast-track trade authority.
“So while I am a big supporter of TAA, if TAA slows down the fast-track, I am prepared to vote against the TAA because then its defeat, sad to say, is the only way that we will be able to slow down the fast-track,” Pelosi said just minutes before the crucial vote. She concluded: “The facts are these: If TAA fails, the fast-track bill is stopped.”
“It’s pretty outrageous what is called for in this bill that Congress is going to vote on Tuesday – it literally doubles and triples the taxes on small businesses,” explained Ellis.
Ellis spent hours researching this legislation and explained to Breitbart News how it could impact small business taxes if Congress passes the TAA during its vote on Tuesday.
“Small businesses that are already over-burdened with IRS paperwork will be penalized even further if they make a technical mistake on filing informational paperwork,” he said. “There’s a lot of dishonesty going on when the bill is described as raising the fines on tax violations. That’s dishonest because the fines aren’t for people who failed to pay their taxes, the fines are on businesses that for no fault of their own, they forget to fie a piece of paperwork telling the IRS how much someone else owes on their taxes.”
“It’s outrageous that Republicans who complain all the time – rightfully so – about the IRS’s overreach and over burdening small business are actually increasing the incentive for the IRS to spy on people – to spy on small businesses,” he added.
Essentially, as explained by Ellis, any time a small business paid an independent contractor or freelancer a commission or any tips, it must be reported to the IRS with a 1099 form, which a copy is also sent to the contractor or freelancer. If the small business is late in filing this form, then it is fined by the IRS. The proposal Tuesday, as it stands, would double and triple these fines.
“It is the height of cynicism for Congress to plan on paying for a welfare program for unions by increasing the penalties for small businesses,” Ellis reacted.
President of Americans for Limited Government Rick Manning agrees with Ellis about this increasing penalty being a tax increase on small businesses.
“There is no question that raising the penalty on small businesses who commit a paperwork error is a tax increase. It is directly intended to raise revenues, so it can’t be considered anything else. For Republican leadership to ask their members to vote to raise taxes on small business to fund a union bailout that Big Labor doesn’t want is both horrific policy and terrible politics,” Manning told Breitbart News.
This program was so unpopular with both Democrats and Republicans that they removed it from Obamacare.
“This is very similar to one of the ways Obamacare was going to be paid for – as Obamacare was enacted they were looking for revenue to pay for it by increasing the penalties on small businesses who failed to file 1099 forms – that was repealed because it was so unpopular,” Ellis said. “Republicans led the charge in repealing it and now they’re the ones leading the charge to once again increase the penalties in already burdensome paperwork for the IRS.”
Therefore, the Republicans that voted for TAA Friday, essentially voted to finance TAA at the expense of increasing small business taxes – a direct violation of the Grover Norquist tax pledge, which many Republican Congressmen took, pledging to the American public not to raise any more taxes.
Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, a group for taxpayer advocacy to limit size of government, organized the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. The pledge asks all politicians for both federal and state office to sign the pledge, committing themselves to oppose tax increases.
“This is clearly a tax increase – and it’s a violation of Grover Norquist’s no tax increase pledge that most of these Congressmen signed,” Ellis said. “This legislation assumes that there are small businesses out there that will fail to file the 1099 form and will therefore have to pay a fine.”
“It assumes small businesses will be forced to pay the IRS and then it goes further and says ‘let’s make them pay more’ – it doubles and triples the fines,” he argued.
Nearly every elected Republican in America—with rare exception—has signed Norquist’s anti-tax pledge. As such, the 86 Republicans who voted to raise small business taxes through the TAA on Friday most likely did as well.
ATR spokesman John Kartch told Breitbart News he doesn’t think TAA as it’s structured now in the House is a tax and that it does not violate the tax pledge—but that ATR is vehemently opposed to the program and is recommending all Republicans vote against it. That means ATR is in agreement with other groups from a more conservative perspective—albeit for slightly different reasons—on this matter, and won’t back down to help Obamatrade across the finish line.
“The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) is, like most government jobs training programs, a well intentioned, but flawed program,” Kartch said in an email on Sunday night.
“Americans for Tax Reform opposes the TAA program and any increase in funding for it. The TAA is tied to the Trade Promotion Authority designed to facilitate trade agreements that reduce tariffs. Tariffs are taxes. For most of our nation’s history our national government was largely funded by tariffs. The increases in fines for not filing 1099s are not tax hikes. Tax increases come from changes in tax law. ATR opposes the increase in the fines. Not every stupid move by government is a tax. Civil asset forfeiture is a vicious misuse of government power — but it is not a tax. Excise taxes are taxes and the bottom line of the drive to expand free trade is that — even with silly ‘bribes’ to Democrats like the TAA –freer trade driven by tariff reductions will reduce the taxes paid by American consumers and increase the nation’s economic strength. As has happened with every tariff reduction in our history.”
This is extraordinarily significant, since Norquist and his organization did support the TPA portion of Obamatrade, but the public opposition to its TAA portion means it’s unlikely any GOP votes will budge if and when leadership brings up TAA again next week. In fact, if any Republicans change their votes, they’re likely to switch from voting in favor of TAA to against it so not to violate their pledge.
Ellis, Manning and Norquist are hardly the only influential right-of-center figures opposing TAA.
“Regardless of how TAA is financed, it is a wasteful ineffective program that undermines the virtues of free trade,” Dan Holler, Communications Director for Heritage Action for America, told Breitbart News.
Heritage Action and Club for Growth – a conservative group – both oppose the TAA program saying it’s a wasteful welfare program. Heritage Action scored against TPA and TAA, but Club For Growth supported—like ATR—TPA but not TAA.
When TAA went down in the House last week, only 86 Republicans voted for it—and they were joined by just 40 Democrats.
A whopping 158 Republicans joined 144 Democrats to oppose TAA. To pass TAA this week, the only way to truly keep Obamatrade alive without having to go through a grueling conference committee strategy that would likely lead to even more lost votes on both the House and Senate side when they would vote on an eventual conference report, the establishment would need to pick up 92 votes to get to 218.
That seems highly unlikely, given that the widespread GOP opposition and the revelation that voting for this TAA portion is technically voting for a tax increase. That alone is likely to keep the 158 Republican noes in their column and probably add GOP opposition as several of the 86 GOP ayes are likely to change their votes to oppose it as Democrat opposition is getting stronger too. On Sunday, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton—the likely eventual Democrat nominee for president in 2016—urged Democrats to trust Pelosi and oppose granting Obama fast track trade authority until a good deal is assured.
“The president should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
,” Clinton said in Iowa.
If TAA were to pass—which is even more unlikely now that there’s probably not going to be any Democrat or GOP defections into supporting it—then so does TPA. The bills would move on to President Obama’s desk together, giving him fast-track authority to finalize his trade deals without any amendments to his deals by Congress.
Ryan’s office has not responded to a request for comment in response to these revelations about Obamatrade’s tax increases.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/14/gop-leaderships-latest-obamatrade-ploy-revealed-small-business-tax-hike-that-violates-gops-anti-tax-pledge/
Trade in Services Agreement
The Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) is a proposed international trade treaty between 24 Parties, including the European Union and the United States. The agreement aims at liberalizing the worldwide trade of services such as banking, health care and transport.[1] Criticism about the secrecy of the agreement arose after WikiLeaks released in June 2014 a classified draft of the proposal’s financial services annex, dated the previous April.[2]
Origin
Parties to Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA)
The process was an initiative of the United States. It was proposed to a group of countries meeting in Geneva and called the Really Good Friends. All negotiating meetings take place in Geneva. The EU and the US are the main proponents of the agreement, and the authors of most joint changes. The participating countries started crafting the proposed agreement in February 2012[3] and presented initial offers at the end of 2013.[4]
Proposed Agreement
The agreement covers about 70% of the global services economy. Its aim is privatizing the worldwide trade of services such as banking, healthcare and transport.[1][5] Services comprise 75% of American economic output; in EU states, almost 75% of its employment and gross domestic product.[6]
Once a particular trade barrier has unilaterally been removed, it cannot be reintroduced. This proposal is known as the ‘ratchet clause’.[7]
European Union
The EU has stated that companies outside its borders will not be allowed to provide publicly funded healthcare or social services.[7]
Market access for publicly-funded health, social services and education, water services, film or TV will not be taken. Therefore, the ‘racket clause’ will not apply.[7]
Parties involved
Initially having 16 members, the TISA has expanded to include 24 parties. Since the European Union represents 28 member states, there are 51 countries represented.[8] The number of countries represented in each continent are: 32 in Europe, 7 in Asia, 5 in North America, 5 in South America, and 2 in Oceania. The 24 TiSA parties in order of their income categories are:[9]
Controversy
The agreement has been criticized for the secrecy around the negotiation. The cover page of the negotiating document leaked by Wikileaks says: “Declassify on: Five years from entry into force of the TISA agreement or, if no agreement enters into force, five years from the close of the negotiations.”[2] Because of this practice it is not possible to be informed about the liberalizing rules that the participating countries propose for the future agreement. Only Switzerland has a practice of making public on the Internet all the proposals it submitted to the other parties since June 2012.[3] European Union published its “offer” for TISA only in July 2014,[10]after the Wikileaks disclosure.
Digital rights advocates have also brought attention to the fact that the agreement has provisions which would significantly weaken existing data protection provisions in signatory countries. In particular, the agreement would strip existing protections which aim to keep confidential or personally identifiable data within country borders or which prohibit its movement to other countries which do not have similar data protection laws in place.[11]
The agreement bans government mandates for use of open source software, stating “No Party may require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition of providing services related to such software in its territory.”[12] The open source word processing application LibreOffice has been deployed by many local governments throughout the EU to save money.[13][14][15][16]
Analysis
A preliminary analysis of the Financial Services Annex by prominent free trade critic Professor Jane Kelsey, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, New Zealandwas published with the WikiLeaks release.[17]
The Public Services International (PSI) organization described TISA as:
One concern is the provisions regarding retention of business records. David Cay Johnston said, “It is … hard to make the case that the cost of keeping a duplicate record at the home office in a different country is a burden.” He noted that business records requirements are sufficiently important that they were codified in law even before the Code of Hammurabi.[19]
Impacts of the law may include “whether people can get loans or buy insurance and at what prices as well as what jobs may be available.”[19]
Dr. Patricia Ranald, a research associate at the University of Sydney, said:
Regarding the secrecy of the draft, Professor Kelsey commented: “The secrecy of negotiating documents exceeds even the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement(TPP) and runs counter to moves in the WTO towards greater openness.”[17] Johnston adds, “It is impossible to obey a law or know how it affects you when the law is secret.”[19]
See also
References
External links[edit]
expired
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_in_Services_Agreement
Visa policy of the United States
A US visa specimen
Entry passport stamp for the United States issued to a citizen of Canada by the U.S. Customs and Border Protectionat San Francisco International Airport.
The visa policy of the United States deals with the requirements which a foreign national wishing to enter the United States must meet to obtain a visa, which is a permit to travel to, enter and remain in the country. Visitors to the United States must obtain a visa from one of the United States diplomatic missions unless they come from one of the visa exempt countries or Visa Waiver Program countries. The same rules apply to Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands while slightly different rules apply to Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.[1]
The United States gives a visitor visa exemption to:
Overview
United States Visas were issued to 8.9 million foreign nationals visiting the United States and to 482,000 immigrants in 2012.[2] A foreign national wishing to enter the U.S. must obtain a visa unless he or she is
There are separate requirements for Mexican citizens.[3]
While there are about 185 different types of visas,[4] there are two main categories of U.S. visas:
In order to immigrate, one should either have an immigrant visa or have a dual intent visa, which is one that is compatible with making a concurrent application for permanent resident status, or having an intention to apply for permanent residence.
Entering the U.S. on an employment visa may be described as a three-step process in most cases.[4] First, the employer files an application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services requesting a particular type of category visa for a specific individual.[4] If the employer’s application is approved, it only authorizes the individual to apply for a visa; the approved application is not actually a visa.[4] The individual then applies for a visa and is usually interviewed at a U.S. embassy or consulate in the native country.[4] If the embassy or consulate gives the visa, the individual is then allowed to travel to the U.S.[4] At the border crossing, airport, or other point of entry into the U.S., the individual speaks with an officer from U.S. Customs and Border Protection to ask to admission to the U.S.[4] If approved, the individual may then enter the U.S.[4]
Contrary to a popular misconception, a U.S. visa does not authorize the alien‘s entry to the United States, nor does it authorize the alien’s stay in the U.S. in a particular status. A U.S. visa only serves as a preliminary permission given to the alien to travel to the United States and to seek admission to the United States at a designated port of entry.[5] The final admission to the United States in a particular status and for a particular period of time is made at the port of entry by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer. For aliens entering the U.S. in a nonimmigrant visa status these details are recorded by the CBP officer on the alien’sForm I-94 (Form I-94W for citizens of the Visa Waiver Program countries entering the U.S. for short visits), which serves as the official document authorizing the alien’s stay in the United States in a particular non-immigrant visa status and for a particular period of time.[6] Another type of U.S. visa is lottery visa. 50,000 additional visa numbers are available each year under the section of visa lottery. In the last few years more than 9 million people have participated in the visa lottery[7]
Visa exemption
Citizens of the following countries, linked with the USA by theCompacts of Free Association, do not require a visa to enter, reside, study, and work indefinitely in the United States:
Citizens of the following country do not require a visa to visit the United States and can study and work under special simplified procedure:
Visa Waiver Program
Currently, 38 countries have been selected by the U.S. government for inclusion in the Visa Waiver Program and their citizens do not need to acquire a US visa (but are required to get an electronic authorization if arriving by air or cruise ship[12]) to visit the United States (including Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands):[13]
Visitors may stay for 90 days in the United States which also includes the time spent in Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, or the islands in the Caribbean if the arrival was through the United States.
The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) is not a visa. Rather, obtaining a travel authorization from ESTA is a prerequisite to travelling by air to the US under the Visa Waiver Program.[37] ESTA authorization, once obtained, is valid for two years unless during that time the person obtains a new passport or his/her answers to any of the eligibility questions change.[38]
Other arrangements
Citizens of the following countries and territories can travel without obtaining a visa for the United States under certain circumstances:
Guam and Northern Mariana Islands Visa Waiver Program]
The U.S. territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands have a specific Guam-Northern Mariana Islands Visa Waiver Program too. Under this program, first enacted in October 1988 and periodically amended, nationals from several additional countries in Asia and the Pacific islands are permitted to enter the Northern Marianas and Guam as tourists without a visa for up to 45 days. Travel is not permitted onwards to the mainland United States, and because of special visa categories for the Northern Mariana Islands foreign workers, traveling between Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands still requires a full immigration inspection.[46] In addition to the citizens of Australia, Brunei, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and the United Kingdom who are also eligible for the Visa Waiver Program (but do not require ESTA for Guam and Northern Mariana Islands), citizens of the following countries and territories are eligible only for the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program:[47][48]
American Samoa
American Samoa entry stamp
The visa waiver does not apply to American Samoa.
Nationals of the following countries arriving for tourism purposes only do not require a visa (they are issued with a 30 day entry permit on arrival): Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland,Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,Palau, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.[51]
Summary of visa exemptions
and Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Islands
Outlying islands
Visits to the United States Minor Outlying Islands – Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island and Navassa Island – are severely restricted. Most of the islands are closed off, and prospective visitors require special permits, usually from the US army.[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]
Qualification process
The typical process for issuing a United States visa, possibly including aVisas Mantis check
Applicants for visitor visas must show that they qualify under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The presumption in the law is that every nonimmigrant visa applicant (except certain employment-related applicants, who are exempt) is an intending immigrant unless otherwise proven. Therefore, applicants for most nonimmigrant visas must overcome this presumption by demonstrating that:
All visit, business, transit, student, and exchange visitor visa applicants must pay a US$160 application fee (up from $140 as of April 2012) to a US Consulate in order to be interviewed by a Consular Officer who will determine if the applicant is qualified to receive a visa to travel to the U.S (additionally, the officer may also ask the United States Department of State for a Security Advisory Opinion, which can take several weeks to resolve). The application fee is increased to $190 for most work visas (up from $150 as of April 2012) and can be even higher for certain categories. If the applicant is rejected, the application fee is not refunded. Amongst the items included in the qualification decision are financial independence, adequate employment, material assets and a lack of a criminal record in the applicant’s native country.
The immigration visa process is even more stringent and costly. After all processing fees have been paid, most immigration visa applicants pay well over 1000 U.S. dollars to become permanent residents in the United States and may be forced to wait several years before actually immigrating to the U.S.
Visitor visa statistics
Issued B-1,2 visas in fiscal 2013
In fiscal 2013 most B-1,2 visas were issued to the nationals of the following countries (listed over 40,000 visas):[68]
In fiscal 2013 most reasons to refuse a visa were cited as “failure to establish entitlement to nonimmigrant status”, “incompatible application” (most overcome), “unlawful presence”, “misrepresentation”, “criminal convictions”, “smugglers” and “controlled substance violators”. Smaller number of applications were rejected for “physical or mental disorder”, “prostitution”, “espionage”, “terrorist activities”, “falsely claiming citizenship” and other grounds for refusal including “presidential proclamation”, “money laundering”, “communicable disease” and “commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial killings”.[70]
Admission statistics
Number of non-immigrant admissions for tourists and for business purposes into the United States in fiscal year 2013
Highest number of non-immigrant admissions for tourists and for business purposes into the United States in fiscal year 2013 was from the following countries (listed over 700,000 admissions):[71]
Classes of nonimmigrant visas
A visa
A visas are issued to representatives of a foreign government traveling to the United States to engage in official activities for that government. A visas are granted to foreign government ambassadors, ministers, diplomats, as well as other foreign government officials or employees traveling on official business (A-1 Visa). The A visa is also granted to immediate family members of such foreign government officials, defined as “the principal applicant’s spouse and unmarried sons and daughters of any age who are not members of some other household and who will reside regularly in the household of the principal alien” (A-2 Visa) and which “may also include close relatives of the principal alien or spouse who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption who are not members of some other household; who will reside regularly in the household of the principal alien; and who are recognized as dependents by the sending government (A-3 Visa).[72]
B-1 and B-2
The most common non-immigrant visa is the multiple-purpose B-1/B-2 visa, also known as the “visa for temporary visitors for business or pleasure.” Visa applicants sometimes receive either a B-1 (temporary visitor for business) or a B-2 (temporary visitor for pleasure) visa, if their reason for travel is specific enough that the consular officer does not feel they qualify for combined B-1/B-2 status.[73] Holders may also attend short non-credit courses. Mexican citizens are eligible for Border Crossing Cards.[74]
Validity period
US B visa validity period
Validity of visas by nationality for B-1/B-2 visa:[75]
Adjusted Visa refusal Rate
US B visa refusal rate
The Adjusted Visa Refusal Rate for fiscal year 2014 for B visas was:[90]
Use for other countries
US tourist visas that are valid for further travel are accepted as substitute visas for national visas in following countries:
C visa
C-1 visa is a transit visa issued to individuals who are travelling in “immediate and continuous transit through the United States enroute to another country”. The only reason to enter the United States must be for transit purposes. A subtype C-2 visa is issued to diplomats transiting to and from the Headquarters of the United Nations and is limited to the vicinity of New York City.[94]
D visa
D visa is issued to crew members of sea-vessels and international airlines in the United States. This includes commercial airline pilots and flight attendants, captain, engineer, or deckhand of a sea vessel, service staff on a cruise ship and trainees on board a training vessel. Usually a combination of a C-1 visa and D visa is required.[95]
E visa
Treaty Trader (E-1 visa) and Treaty Investor (E-2 visa) visas are issued to citizens of countries that have signed treaties of commerce and navigation with the United States.[96] They are issued to individuals engaged in substantial trade activities in international banking, insurance, transportation, tourism or communications with significant economic impact in the United States.[97] The variant visa issued only to citizens of Australia is the E-3 visa (E-3D visa is issued to spouse or child of E-3 visa holder and E-3R to a returning E-3 holder).[98]
F visa
These visas are issued for foreign students enrolled at accredited US institutions. F-1 visas are for full-time students, F2 visas are for spouses and children of F-1 visa holders and F-3 visas are for “border commuters” who reside in their country of origin while attending school in the United States.[99] They are managed through SEVIS.[100]
G visa
The G visas are issued to diplomats, government officials, and employees who will work for international organizations in the United States. The international organization must be officially designated as such.[101] The G-1 visa is issued to permanent mission members, G-2 visa is issued to representatives of a recognized government traveling temporarily to attend meetings of a designated international organization, G-3 visa is issued to individuals representing non-recognized governments, G-4 visa is for those who are taking up an appointment and G-5 visa is issued to personal employees or domestic workers of G1-G4 visa holders.[102]G1-G4 visas are also issued to family members.[103]
Those working specifically for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization require a NATO visa. NATO–1 visa is issued to permanent representatives of NATO and their staff members, NATO-2 visa is issued to a representative of member state to NATO or its subsidiary bodies, advisor or technical expert of the NATO delegation visiting the United States, a member of the NATO military forces component or a staff member of the NATO representative, NATO-3 visa is issued to official clerical staff accompanying the representative of a NATO member state, NATO-4 visa is issued to foreign national recognized as a NATO official, NATO-5 visa is issued to a foreign national recognized as a NATO expert and NATO-6 visa is issued to a member of the civilian component of the NATO. All NATO visas are issued to immediate family members as well. NATO-7 visas are issued to personal employees or domestic workers of a NATO-1 – NATO-6 visa holders.[104]
H visa
H visas are issued to temporary workers in the United States.
The H-1B classification is for professional-level jobs that require a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in a specific academic field. In addition, the employee must have the degree or the equivalence of such a degree through education and experience. There is a required wage, which is at least equal to the wage paid by the employer to similarly qualified workers or a prevailing wage for such positions in the geographic regions where the jobs are located. This visa also covers fashion models of distinguished merit and ability.[105][106] H-1B1 visa is the variant issued to citizens of Singapore and Chile.
The H-2A visa allows a foreign national entry into the US for temporary or seasonal agricultural work for eligible employers under certain conditions (seasonal job, no available US workers).[107]
The H-2B visa allows a foreign national entry into the US for temporary or seasonal non-agricultural work for eligible employers under certain conditions (seasonal job, no available US workers).[108]
The H-3 visa is available to those foreign nationals looking to “receive training in any field of endeavor, other than graduate medical education or training, that is not available in the foreign national’s home country” or ” participate in a special education exchange visitor training program that provides for practical training and experience in the education of children with physical, mental, or emotional disabilities.”.[109]
H-4 visa is issued to immediate family members of H visa holders. They are also eligible for employment.[110]
I visa
The I-1 visa is issued to representatives of the foreign media, including members of the press, radio, film, and print industries travelling to temporarily work in the United States in the profession.[111]
J visa
J-1 visa is issued to participants of work-and study-based exchange visitor programs.[112] The Exchange Visitor Program is carried out under the provisions of theFulbright-Hays Act of 1961, officially known as the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Pub.L. 87–256, 75 Stat. 527). The purpose of the Act is to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries by means of educational and cultural exchanges. The Exchange Visitor Program is administered by the Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. In carrying out the responsibilities of the Exchange Visitor Program, the Department designates public and private entities to act as exchange sponsors. Spouses and dependents of J-1 exchange visitors are issued a J-2 visa.[113]
Exchange visa categories are:
Exchange Visitor Pilot Programs exist for citizens of Australia,[128] Ireland,[129] New Zealand[130] and South Korea.[131]
K visa
A K-1 visa is a visa issued to the fiancé or fiancée of a United States citizen to enter the United States. A K-1 visa requires a foreigner to marry his or her U.S. citizen petitioner within 90 days of entry, or depart the United States. Once the couple marries, the foreign citizen can adjust status to become a lawful permanent residentof the United States (Green Card holder).[132] K-2 visa is issued to unmarried children under the age of 21.[133] Foreign same-sex partners of United States citizens are currently recognized by USCIS and accordingly can be sponsored for K-1 visas and for permanent resident status.[134]
K-3/K-4 visas are issued to foreign spouses and children of US citizens.[135]
L visa
The L-1 classification is for international transferees who have worked for a related organization abroad for at least one continuous year in the past three years and who will be coming to the United States to work in an executive or managerial (L-1A) or specialized knowledge capacity (L-1B).[136] L-2 visa is issued to dependent spouse and unmarried children under 21 years of age of qualified L-1 visa holders.
M visa
The M-1 visa is a type of student visa reserved for vocational and technical schools. Students in M-1 status may not work on or off campus while studying, and they may not change their status to F-1. The M-2 visa permits the spouse and minor children of an M-1 vocational student to accompany him or her to the United States.[137]
O visa
O visa is a classification of non-immigrant temporary worker visa granted to an alien “who possesses extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics (O-1A visa), or who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry and has been recognized nationally or internationally for those achievements,” (O-1B visa) and to certain assistants (O-2 visa) and immediate family members of such aliens (O-3 visa).[138]
P visa
P visas are issued to individuals or team athletes, or member of an entertainment group including persons providing essential support services (P-1 visa), artists or entertainers (individual or group) under a reciprocal exchange program (P-2 visa) and artists or entertainers (individual or group) visiting to perform, teach or coach under a program that is culturally unique.[139] P-4 visas are issued to spouses, or children under the age of 21, of a P-1, P-2, or P-3 alien and who is accompanying, or following to join.
Q visa
Q visa is issued to participants in an international cultural exchange program.[139]
R visa
R-1 visa is issued to temporary religious workers. They must have been a member of a religious denomination having a bona fide non-profit religious organization in the United States for at least 2 years.[140] R-2 visa is issued to dependent family members.[141]
TN visa
NAFTA Professional (TN) visa allows citizens of Canada and Mexico whose profession is on the NAFTA list[142] and who must hold a bachelor’s degree to work in the United States on a prearranged job. Canadian citizens usually do not require a visa to work under the TN status (unless they live outside Canada with non-Canadian family members) while Mexican citizens require a TN visa. Spouse and dependent children of a TN professional can be admitted into the United States in the TD status.[143]
U and T visas
U-1 visa is a nonimmigrant visa which is set aside for victims of crimes (and their immediate family members) who have suffered substantial mental or physical abuse and are willing to assist law enforcement and government officials in the investigation or prosecution of the criminal activity.[144] Subtypes of this visa are U-2 issued to spouses of U-1, U-3 issued to children of U-1, U-4 issued to parents of U-1 under the age of 21 and U-5 issued to unmarried siblings under the age of 18 of U-1 who is under 21.
T-1 visa is issued to victims of severe forms of human trafficking. Holders may adjust their status to permanent resident status.[145] Subtypes of this visa are T-2 issued to spouses of T-1, T-3 issued to children of T-1, T-4 issued to parents of T-1 under the age of 21 and T-5 issued to unmarried siblings under the age of 18 of T-1 who is under 21.
V visa
The V visa is a temporary visa available to spouses and minor children (unmarried, under 21) of U.S. lawful permanent residents (LPR, also known as green cardholders). It allows permanent residents to achieve family unity with their spouses and children while the immigration process takes its course. It was created by the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000.[146] The Act is to relieve those who applied for immigrant visas on or before December 21, 2000. Practically, the V visa is currently not available to spouses and minor children of LPRs who have applied after December 21, 2000.[147]
List of US visa types
All US visa types and subtypes are listed below:[148][149]
Immigrants
Nonimmigrants
[151][152][153]
* Persons with H-1B visas, H-4 visas (as immediate family members of H-1B visa holders), K visas, L visas, and V visas are permitted to have dual intent under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Federal regulations also appear to recognize dual intent O visas, P visas, and E visas.
Visa denial
Section 221(g) of Immigration and Nationality Act defined several classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas.
Grounds for denial may include, but are not limited to:
Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (also cited as 8 United States Code § 1184(b))[154] states that most aliens must be presumed to be intending to remain in the US, until and unless they are able to show that they are entitled to nonimmigrant status. This means there are two sides to a 214(b) denial. Either
An example of a denial based upon the first ground would be an applicant for an F-1 student visa who the consular officer felt was secretly intending to remain in the US permanently.
An example of a denial based upon the second ground would be an H-1B applicant who couldn’t prove he possessed the equivalent of a US bachelor’s degree in a specialty field—such an equivalency being a requirement for obtaining an H-1B visa.
In order to thereafter obtain a visa applicants are recommended to objectively evaluate their situation, see in what way they fell short of the visa requirements, and then reapply.[155]
In 2005, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi (then Chief Minister of Gujarat) was denied a diplomatic visa to the United States. In addition, the B-1/B-2 visa that had previously been granted to him was also revoked, under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act which makes any foreign government official who was responsible or “directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom” ineligible for the visa.[156] Modi is the only person ever denied a visa to the U.S. under this provision.[157]
Exceptions
There are cases when a US visa has been granted to aliens who were technically ineligible. Japanese mafia (yakuza) leader Tadamasa Goto and three others were issued visas for travel between 2000 and 2004 to undergo liver transplant surgery at UCLA Medical Center.[158] The FBI had aided the men in the visa application process hoping that they would provide information regarding yakuza activities in the US.[158]
See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_States
Exports as Share of GDP By Country
This page shows Exports as Share of GDP across various countries.
Click on any country name on this page to see a time series of Exports as Share of GDP for that country, along with options for graphing, downloading and validating the underlying data.
For any country, click on the Country Page icon to see a collection of 65+ economic, demographic and societal indicators for that country.
Countries are grouped by region. A single sortable table showing all the countries of the world is at the bottom of this page.
G-20 Economies
Click to download all data for G-20 Economies (csv).
Western Europe
Click to download all data for Western Europe (csv).
Eastern Europe
Click to download all data for Eastern Europe (csv).
Former Soviet Republics
Click to download all data for Former Soviet Republics (csv).
East Asia
Click to download all data for East Asia (csv).
South Asia
Click to download all data for South Asia (csv).
Middle East and North Africa
Click to download all data for Middle East and North Africa (csv).
Sub-Saharan Africa
Click to download all data for Sub-Saharan Africa (csv).
North America
Click to download all data for North America (csv).
Caribbean
Click to download all data for Caribbean (csv).
Central America
Click to download all data for Central America (csv).
South America
Click to download all data for South America (csv).
Australia and Oceania
Click to download all data for Australia and Oceania (csv).
World
https://www.quandl.com/collections/economics/exports-as-share-of-gdp-by-country
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-486
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )