My top priority as President is making sure more hardworking Americans have a chance to get ahead. That’s why we have to make sure the United States — and not countries like China — is the one writing this century’s rules for the world’s economy.

Trade has an important role to play in supporting good-paying, middle-class jobs in the United States. Unfortunately, past trade deals haven’t always lived up to the hype. That’s why I’ve made it clear that I won’t sign any agreement that doesn’t put American workers first.

But we also should recognize that 95 percent of our potential customers live outside our borders. Exports support more than 11 million jobs — and exporters tend to pay their workers higher wages. Failing to seize new opportunities would be devastating not just for our businesses, but for our workers too.

That’s why my Administration is currently negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership — so we can benefit from trade that is not just free, but also fair.

Watch this video my team put together, and then share it with anyone who needs to know exactly what’s at stake.

We have the chance to open up more markets to goods and services backed by three proud words: Made in America. For the sake of our businesses, and American workers, it’s an opportunity we need to take.

But beyond greater access to the world’s fastest-growing region, the agreement will establish enforceable commitments to protect labor, environmental, and other crucial standards that Americans hold dear.

Right now, China wants to write the rules for commerce in Asia. If it succeeds, our competitors would be free to ignore basic environmental and labor standards, giving them an unfair advantage over American workers.

We can’t let that happen. We should write the rules, and level the playing field for our middle class. The first step is for Congress to pass Trade Promotion Authority.

Watch the video, and then pass it along.

After years of shipping jobs overseas, our manufacturing sector is creating jobs at a pace not seen since the 1990s. Rather than outsourcing, more companies are insourcing and bringing jobs back home. Today, more than half of manufacturing executives have said they’re looking at bringing jobs back from China.

Let’s give them one more reason to get it done, by giving me the tools I need to grow our economy, boost exports for our businesses, and give more hardworking middle-class families a chance to get ahead.

Thanks,

President Barack Obama

By CAP Action War Room

The Changing Face of America’s Electorate Has Big Political Implications for 2016

One of several reasons Democrats did not have a successful 2014 was the predictably low turnout among some of the party’s key constituencies. But, as we wrote, 2016 is a whole different ballgame. Now a new Center for American Progress analysis takes a big step in quantifying just how different it could be — and how much of a headwind the GOP faces to retake the White House.

The study, by policy analyst Patrick Oakford, runs a number of simulations of the 2016 elections incorporating the projected racial and ethnic demographic changes in America. As voters of color make up an increasing share of the electorate, it becomes increasingly difficult for Republicans to win key swing states and in turn the Electoral College. In fact, the study finds that even if racial and ethnic groups vote in 2016 how they voted in 2004 when Bush won reelection, Republicans would still lose key states like Ohio.

Here is a brief overview of the simulations and their findings. Check out the full issue brief for more details.

Simulation #1: Racial and ethnic groups turn out to vote at 2012 levels and vote for Republicans and Democrats at 2012 levels.

This scenario means that nothing changes between the 2012 and 2016 elections except for demographic shifts. In this case, the only change is that Democrats would win North Carolina.

Simulation #2: Racial and ethnic groups turn out at 2012 levels, but vote at 2004 levels.

This scenario helps Republicans — four in ten Hispanic voters went for George W. Bush in 2004, while just 27 percent voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. It addresses the argument that voting patters among minority groups might change when Barack Obama is not on the ticket. But, with the demographic changes, Democrats still come out on top in the Electoral College. Ohio, which went for Bush in 2004, would turn blue again.

Simulations #3: Racial and ethnic groups turn out at 2012 levels. Whites vote at 2012 levels, while racial minorities vote at 2004 levels.

This final scenario attempts to stack the deck in favor of Republicans. That’s because they got a stronger white vote in 2012 than in 2004, but a stronger Hispanic vote in 2004 than in 2012. And yet, they come up short in this simulations as well.

BOTTOM LINE: New projections of the 2016 electorate show that Republicans can’t just hope for a return to pre-Obama voting patterns to win the presidency. They need to do even better. But instead of trying to actually represent the changing electorate by tackling the important challenges that matter to these groups, like passing immigration reform, House Republicans are gearing up to defund the president’s recent common-sense executive actions on immigration, rolling back important protections and splitting families and communities in the process.

“The best love is the kind that awakens the soul; that makes us reach for more, that plants the fire in our hearts and brings peace to our minds. That’s what I hope to give you forever.”

— The Notebook

By CAP Action War Room

Bush-Appointed Judge, Hand-Picked By Anti-Immigrant Activists, Rules Against President Obama’s Immigration Actions

Late last night, Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas temporarily blocked the Department of Homeland Security from implementing President Obama’s deferred action immigration directives. The ruling did not come as a surprise to most observers; Hanen has a history of extremist anti-immigrant decisions.

The bad news is that the judge’s deeply flawed ruling will delay implementation of common-sense measures designed to focus limited enforcement resources on felons, not families (bear in mind this does not affect the existing DACA). The good news, however, is that the decision is only a temporary setback; the judicial process will move beyond Judge Hanen to higher courts. And with extensive jurisprudence pointing toward the fact that the President has the legal authority to act, we are confident that his directives will be deemed constitutional and will be fully implemented.

Here are three key points to know and remember in this case:

1. This is a partisan political attack disguised as a lawsuit. In December, governors and attorneys general from 26 states sued the government to block the DHS directives from going in to effect. Every single governor that signed onto the lawsuit, and all but one of the attorneys general, were Republicans.

What’s more, it is no accident that Judge Haren was the judge selected to rule on the lawsuit. The plaintiffs, led by now-Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX), shopped around for a judge they knew to be sympathetic to their anti-immigrant cause.

2. Judge Hanen’s ruling is not the final decision in the case. The Department of Justice will immediately appeal the judge’s decision and apply for a stay of the ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. At this point, that can go in two possible directions.

• The 5th Circuit grants the requested stay, and implementation of the directives will continue while the court considers the merits of the plaintiffs’ case.
• The 5th Circuit denies the stay request and the temporary injunction remains in effect, further delaying the implementation of the DACA expansion and DAPA programs.

In either situation, a decision on the requested stay should take place within a couple of weeks, while the ruling on the underlying legality of the directives will likely take several months. In the meantime, immigrants who would have been eligible to request deferred action under these directives will not be agency enforcement priorities and should not be removed.

3. We are confident that President Obama’s directives are legal, and that they will proceed. Lawsuits against similar executive action have failed in the past, including a 2012 Mississippi challenge of the DACA program, and an effort by an anti-immigrant Sheriff challenging executive action that was struck down in court in December of last year. More than 130 legal scholars from across the political spectrum wrote a letter to the president urging him to take executive action, and laying out the broad legal authority for taking executive action on immigration. These scholars reaffirmed the legality of the DHS directives after they were announced in late-November.

BOTTOM LINE: Last night’s anti-immigrant ruling by an anti-immigrant federal judge in southern Texas is temporary and an aberration. This judge’s ruling is just another piece of a cynical, partisan strategy to break families apart and oppose the President’s policies at all costs. Legal precedent from Supreme Court rulings and similar lawsuits in the past — not to mention the views of more than one hundred legal experts — demonstrates that ultimately, President Obama’s immigration action and the directives from the Department of Homeland Security will be upheld as constitutional.