Mediaboss Marketing

The American Farm Bureau Federation study says said that fruit and vegetable growers would be among the hardest-hit in changes to agricultural labor reform focusing solely on immigration enforcement.(Photo: John Moore, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON The country's largest farm group said Monday that changes to agricultural labor reform focusing solely on immigration enforcement would raise food prices by 6% and reduce the country's food and fiber production by as much as a $60 billion annually.

In a 45-page study released by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the agriculture group said that fruit and vegetable growers and livestock owners would be hit the hardest.

According to the report, under an enforcement-only scenario fruit production would plummet in the United States by 30% to 61%, vegetable output by 15% to 31%. The impact to fruits and vegetable crops would be the most severe because they must be picked by hand, meaning a sudden loss in workers would increase the chance that some of the produce would go unpicked and rot in the field. Livestock also would be hit with production falling by 13% to 27%,the farm group said.

The report found that consumers and the agricultural sector would benefit from a comprehensive approach that includes an overhauled guest-worker program, the chance for skilled workers to earn an adjustment of status over time and immigration enforcement. A mixed approach would have little to no effect on the price consumers pay for food, and farm income would be cut by less than 1%.

The report was conducted for the Farm Bureau by World Agricultural Economic and Environmental Services.

"Status quo is not a viable option for anyone involved in this issue, and as a nation, we expect better," said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau.

"Over five years, an enforcement-only approach would lead to losses in farm income large enough to trigger large scale restructuring of the sector, higher food prices, and greater dependence on imported products," Stallman said. "With a reworked guest worker program, and by allowing skilled laborers to earn an adjustment of status, food prices remain stable and there are only marginal impacts on production."

The chance of immigration reform grew even more uncertain after House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, last week cast doubts that a bill can pass this year, saying House Republicans weren't moving a bill because of "widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws." Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who sponsored the comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate last year, has proposed letting the law be enforced in 2017, after President Obama leaves the White House.

STORY: Boehner: Distrust of Obama drags down immigration bill

Follow this link:

Farm group pushes for broad immigration reform

WASHINGTON (AP) Little more than a week after Groundhog Day, the evidence is mounting that lawmakers have all but wrapped up their most consequential work of 2014, at least until the results of the fall elections are known.

"We've got a lot of things on our plate," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said recently when asked what Congress will be busy with this year, but he predicted no breakthrough accomplishments on immigration, taxes or any other area.

"Why don't we just pack up and go home?" countered House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California after Boehner blamed President Barack Obama for lack of movement on immigration. "What we're supposed to do is legislate and not make up excuses as to why we don't."

Immigration legislation is hardly the only area where inaction is the likeliest outcome.

A Senate-passed bill has fallen into the congressional equivalent of a black hole in the House, where conservative critics cite a changing series of reasons for not wanting to take action.

Initially, they said they didn't want to vote on a bill because they oppose amnesty for immigrants living in the country illegally. Then they observed it would be a political mistake to shift focus away from their own opposition to the health care law, which unites them, and turn it onto an issue that divides them. Most recently, Boehner, who has said repeatedly he wants to pass an immigration bill, has joined others in citing a lack of trust with Obama as a reason for inaction.

If immigration legislation is moribund in the House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has made it clear he doesn't intend to seek passage of a second Obama priority, this one a bill to facilitate passage of trade deals with Europe and Asia.

"I'm against fast track," said the man who sets the Senate's agenda, referring to the measure Obama wants. "I think everyone would be well advised just to not push this right now."

The legislation is opposed by large segments of organized labor, the very unions that Democrats will be counting on to pour money and manpower into their bid to hold control of the Senate in the November election.

Republicans need to gain six seats to win a majority. They say they increasingly are bullish about their prospects, what with the country generally pessimistic about the future, Obama's favorability ratings well below the levels of his re-election campaign, and controversies afflicting the president's health law.

See more here:

Immigration Reform Not The Only Legislation That Could ...

Immigration reform advocates are done playing nice with House Republicans.

After holding their fire for years at the urging of the Obama administration, several immigration reform groups now plan to unleash their anger at the right.

A new, more aggressive campaign kicks off Tuesday, when these groups say they will begin confronting Republican lawmakers at public appearances, congressional hearings and events back in home districts. The goal: Shame Republicans in swing districts into taking up the issue or make them pay at the ballot box in November.

(Also on POLITICO: Bill Gates: U.S. immigration incredible)

Its unclear if the strategy will truly damage Republicans with their constituents. Or worse, whether it might backfire and oust some of the movements best potential allies across the aisle.

Still, the groups believe its time to try something new. The movement embraced a distinctly positive message when Barack Obama took office in 2009 and stuck with it publicly even until last month, when the groups applauded House Republican leaders for releasing a set of immigration reform principles at a GOP winter retreat.

But things changed last week when Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) dashed hopes that a major immigration overhaul could happen this year leaving immigration groups to say enough is enough.

Obviously, persuasion only got us so far, Kica Matos, a spokeswoman for the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, said Monday. What we are now doing is to switch tactics from persuasion to punishment.

Matos declined to say which members of Congress are at risk for the in-your-face treatment but warned that the campaign would be relentless and constant. Americas Voice and CASA in Action are also leading the effort. The plan for now is to engage in daily confrontations for at least the next two months, Matos said.

(WATCH: Chuck Schumer proposes immigration work-around)

See the article here:

Immigration groups turn to anger

The Republican Party was supposed to be getting its act together for the midterm election. Instead, judging from the disarray on immigration reform, things may be getting even messier.

Im referring to House Speaker John Boehners embarrassing climb-down. After vowing for months that the House would finally take action on immigration, last week he surrendered. The bitterly divided Republican majority cannot agree on how to proceed. Apparently, this is supposed to be President Obamas fault.

If Boehner spilled gravy on his tie, hed probably blame Obama. The fact is, Obama has done everything humanly possible to make it easier for Republicans to support sensible reform.

You know a party is dysfunctional when it cant take yes for an answer. Ostensibly, the GOPs big objection was to a sweeping, comprehensive bill such as the one passed by the Senate. Last fall, the Obama administration signaled its willingness to take a piecemeal approach, if necessary, in order to move forward. So whats the problem?

Um, Obama. And the Affordable Care Act. And, I dont know, maybe Jupiter and Saturn are in astrological misalignment.

The American people, including many of my members, dont trust that the reform that were talking about will be implemented as it was intended to be, Boehner said, somehow managing to keep a straight face.

Come on, Mr. Speaker. House Republicans have made clear that they want to deal with border security before turning to the status of 11 million undocumented immigrants. You say they dont trust Obama to implement tougher border controls? Then why are they content to leave in place the current controls, which presumably are more lenient than the new ones some in the GOP would impose? If the goal is to stem illegal border crossings, wouldnt it be better to constrain the president with tougher laws rather than weaker ones, at least in theory?

In practice, this is all a bunch of nonsense. The Obama administration has been tougher than any previous administration on border security, carrying out a record number of deportations.

Boehner knows this, so he didnt focus on the border as the reason for House Republicans paralyzing lack of trust in the president. He cited the Affordable Care Act specifically, elements of the law that have been delayed or altered by executive action.

By that standard, Republicans in Congress should just take the rest of the year off. If they object to the powers vested in the presidency, its a waste of their time to even consider legislation on any subject. Instead, they should be working to amend the Constitution to make it more to their liking.

See the article here:

Robinson: On immigration, the GOP is out of step

As Hillary Rodham Clinton mulls a second presidential bid, liberals are closely watching whether the onetime supporter of the Iraq war moves to the left or straddles the center.

Democrats say economic issues such as raising the minimum wage and protecting Social Security have become paramount for anyone aiming to lead the party after years of tough economic times.

During the 2008 primary campaign against Barack Obama, Clinton was hurt by her stand on the Iraq war while she was a senator. But she burnished her image among party loyalists during four years at the State Department in the Obama administration. Now liberals want to see how she might carry the torch from Obama.

"We're going to see income inequality play the same role that the war in Iraq played in 2008," said Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy group. "This is less about what she did before. The issue landscape right now is very different than in 2008."

Whether a viable Clinton alternative emerges for the 2016 campaign remains a looming question.

Vice President Joe Biden is leaving his options open. Some liberals hope Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., will reconsider statements that she has no plans to run. Others point to ex-Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who addressed a progressive group in Iowa in December, or Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who is considering a presidential run but endorsed Clinton in 2007.

Liberals have backed efforts by Warren to expand Social Security benefits instead of trimming them to keep the program solvent. In a speech at Colgate University last year, Clinton suggested she shared Obama's approach for a "grand bargain" style deficit reduction that would include increases to tax revenue and adjustments to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Progressives want Clinton to take a tougher stand on Wall Street. They grumble about her speeches at private financial conferences, where she can command fees of $200,000.

"It's a big unknown on where Hillary Clinton stands on issues like core economic populist issues," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. He said there are "a lot of people who want to support her and are rooting for her to adapt to the times" but if she doesn't, there will be room for a challenger.

On Super Bowl Sunday, liberals reacted favorably when Clinton urged fellow Democrats to avoid tougher penalties against Iran as the administration negotiates a comprehensive nuclear deal.

Continued here:

A Fresh Start for Hillary Clinton and Liberals? - ABC News