IWS Documented News DAILY POSTINGS

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress

Alison Siskin, Specialist in Immigration Policy

Liana Sun Wyler, Analyst in International Crime and Narcotics

February 19, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34317.pdf

[full-text, 75 pages]

Summary

Trafficking in persons (TIP) for the purposes of exploitation is believed to be one of the most

prolific areas of contemporary international criminal activity and is of significant interest to the

United States and the international community as a serious human rights concern. TIP is both an

international and a domestic crime that involves violations of labor, public health, and human

rights standards, and criminal law.

In general, the trafficking business feeds on conditions of vulnerability, such as youth, gender,

poverty, ignorance, social exclusion, political instability, and ongoing demand. Actors engaged in

human trafficking range from amateur family-run organizations to sophisticated transnational

organized crime syndicates. Trafficking victims are often subjected to mental and physical abuse

in order to control them, including debt bondage, social isolation, removal of identification cards

and travel documents, violence, and fear of reprisals against them or their families. According to

the International Labor Organization (ILO), some 20.9 million individuals today are estimated to

be victims of forced labor, including TIP. As many as 17,500 people are believed to be trafficked

into the United States each year, and some have estimated that 100,000 U.S. citizen children are

victims of trafficking within the United States.

Human trafficking is of great concern to the United States and the international community. Anti-

TIP efforts have accelerated in the United States since the enactment of the Victims of Trafficking

and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA, P.L. 106-386) and internationally since the passage

of the U.N. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, adopted in 2000.

Through the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA, Division A of P.L. 106-386) and

its reauthorizations (TVPRAs), Congress has aimed to eliminate human trafficking by creating

international and domestic grant programs for both victims and law enforcement, creating new

criminal laws, and conducting oversight on the effectiveness and implications of U.S. anti-TIP

policy. Most recently, the TVPA was reauthorized through FY2011 in the William Wilberforce

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA of 2008, P.L. 110-457).

The United States engages in anti-TIP efforts internationally and domestically. The bulk of U.S.

anti-trafficking programs abroad is administered by the State Department, United States Agency

for International Development, and Department of Labor. In keeping with U.S. anti-trafficking

policy, these programs have emphasized prevention, protection, and prosecution (the three “Ps”).

Prevention programs have combined public awareness and education campaigns with education

and employment opportunities for those at risk of trafficking, particularly women and girls.

Protection programs have involved direct support for shelters, as well as training of local service

providers, public officials, and religious groups. Programs to improve the prosecution rates of

traffickers have helped countries draft or amend existing anti-TIP laws, as well as provided

training for law enforcement and judiciaries to enforce those laws. However, it is difficult to

evaluate the impact of international U.S. anti-trafficking efforts since few reliable measures of

TIP have been identified.

Domestically, anti-TIP efforts also include protection for victims, education of the public, and the

investigation and prosecution of trafficking offenses. The Departments of Justice (DOJ), Health

and Human Services (HHS), and Labor (DOL) have programs or administer grants to other

entities to provide assistance specific to the needs of victims of trafficking. These needs include

temporary housing, independent living skills, cultural orientation, transportation needs, job

training, mental health counseling, and legal assistance. Both HHS and the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS) administer public awareness campaigns on recognizing human

trafficking victims. In addition, within the United States at the federal level, the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) in DOJ, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in DHS both have

primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting traffickers.

Some of the issues surrounding U.S. policy to combat human trafficking include whether there is

equal treatment of all victims—both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens (USCs), as well as

victims of labor and sex trafficking; whether current law and services are adequate to deal with

the emerging issue of minor sex trafficking in the United States (i.e., the prostitution of children

in the United States); and whether U.S. efforts to stem human trafficking internationally are

efficacious especially with the use of the TIP report and aid restrictions.

In addition, the current budget situation has heightened interest in Congress on the funding and

oversight of current efforts to fight TIP, to make sure that the grant programs authorized under the

TVPA as amended do not duplicate efforts and that funding is being used in the most efficacious

manner. Obligations for global and domestic anti-TIP programs, not including operations and law

enforcement investigations, totaled approximately $109.5 million in FY2010. The TVPRA of

2008 authorized $191.3 million in global and domestic anti-TIP programs for FY2011.

Authorizations for the grant programs under TVPA expired at the end of FY2011. On February

12, 2013, the Senate passed S. 47. Among other things, S. 47 would modify some of the grant

programs, expand reporting requirements, create new criminal penalties for trafficking offenses,

and reauthorize appropriations from FY2014 through FY2017.

See also CRS Report R41878, Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States: Overview and

Issues for Congress, by Kristin M. Finklea, Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara, and Alison Siskin;

and CRS Report R42497, Trafficking in Persons: International Dimensions and Foreign Policy

Issues for Congress, by Liana Sun Wyler.

Contents

Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1

Definitions ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Trafficking in Persons ................................................................................................................ 1

Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons .................................................................................... 2

Forced or Compulsory Labor .................................................................................................... 4

Child Soldiers ............................................................................................................................ 5

Scope of the Global TIP Problem .................................................................................................... 5

Traffickers and Recruitment Methods ....................................................................................... 5

Global Estimates ........................................................................................................................ 7

Sex and Labor Trafficking ................................................................................................... 8

Child Trafficking ................................................................................................................. 8

Continuing Global Challenges................................................................................................... 9

Overview of U.S. Foreign Policy Responses ................................................................................. 10

Foreign Country Reporting and Product Blacklisting ............................................................. 11

Foreign Aid and International Anti-Trafficking Projects ......................................................... 11

Foreign Aid Restrictions .......................................................................................................... 12

Conditions on Country Beneficiary Status for Trade Preference Programs ............................ 12

Preventing U.S. Government Participation in Trafficking Overseas ....................................... 12

Trafficking in the United States ..................................................................................................... 15

Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States ..................................................................... 15

Estimates of Human Trafficking in the United States ............................................................. 16

Estimates Into the United States ........................................................................................ 16

Estimates of Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States .......................................... 17

Response to Trafficking within the United States .......................................................................... 18

Immigration Relief for Trafficking Victims............................................................................. 19

T Nonimmigrant Status ..................................................................................................... 19

Continued Presence ........................................................................................................... 23

U Nonimmigrant Status ..................................................................................................... 23

Aid Available to Victims of Trafficking in the United States .................................................. 25

Health and Human Services Grants................................................................................... 26

Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime ......................................................... 28

Department of Labor ......................................................................................................... 29

Domestic Investigations of Trafficking Offenses .................................................................... 29

Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center ....................................................................... 31

Policy Issues .................................................................................................................................. 32

TIP Awareness Among U.S. Diplomats ................................................................................... 32

Credibility of TIP Rankings ..................................................................................................... 32

U.S. Aid Restrictions: A Useful Tool? ..................................................................................... 33

Debates Regarding Prostitution and Sex Trafficking .............................................................. 34

Distinctions Between Trafficking and Alien Smuggling ......................................................... 34

How to Measure the Effectiveness of Global Anti-TIP Programs ........................................... 35

Issues Concerning Immigration Relief for Trafficking Victims .............................................. 35

Stringency of T Determination .......................................................................................... 36

Tool of Law Enforcement or Aid to Victims ..................................................................... 37

Victims’ Safety .................................................................................................................. 37

Funding and Authority to Assist U.S. Citizen and LPR Victims of Trafficking ...................... 38

Resources for Trafficking Victims’ Services ..................................................................... 39

Oversight of Domestic Grants ................................................................................................. 39

Legislation in the 113th Congress ................................................................................................... 40

Title XII of S. 47 ...................................................................................................................... 40

Trafficking Provisions in Other Titles of S. 47 ........................................................................ 45

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 46

Figures

Figure B-1. Anti-TIP Obligations by Agency: FY2005-FY2010................................................... 58

Figure B-2. International Anti-TIP Obligations by Region: FY2005-FY2010 .............................. 62

Tables

Table 1. Number of Suspected Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Victims by Location ................ 18

Table 2. T-visas Issued: FY2002 through FY2012 ........................................................................ 21

Table 3. U Visas Issued FY2009-FY2012 ..................................................................................... 24

Table 4. Current Law and S. 47 as passed by the Senate: A Comparison of Authorizations

of Appropriations ........................................................................................................................ 43

Table 5. H.R. 2830 and S. 1301: Comparison of Authorizations of Appropriations ..................... 68

Table B-1. Current Authorizations to Implement TVPA, as amended ........................................... 55

Table B-2. Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, as Amended,

Authorizations and Appropriations, FY2001-2011 ..................................................................... 57

Table B-3. Authorizations and Appropriations for Grant Programs to Assist Victims of

Trafficking in the United States: FY2001-FY2012 .................................................................... 58

Table B-4. Anti-TIP Assistance through the Foreign Operations Budget ...................................... 60

Appendixes

Appendix A. Anti-Trafficking Administrative Directives and Legislation .................................... 47

Appendix B. Domestic and International TIP Funding ................................................................. 55

Appendix C. TVPA Reauthorization Activity in the 112th Congress ............................................. 63

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 70

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 70

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

NAFTA at 20: Overview and Trade Effects

M. Angeles Villarreal, Specialist in International Trade and Finance

Ian F. Fergusson, Specialist in International Trade and Finance

February 21, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf

[full-text, 34 pages]

Summary

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into force on January 1, 1994. The

agreement was signed by President George H.W. Bush on December 17, 1992, and approved by

Congress on November 20, 1993. The NAFTA Implementation Act was signed into law by

President William J. Clinton on December 8, 1993 (P.L. 103-182). The overall economic impact

of NAFTA is difficult to measure since trade and investment trends are influenced by numerous

other economic variables, such as economic growth, inflation, and currency fluctuations. The

agreement may have accelerated the trade liberalization that was already taking place, but many

of these changes may have taken place with or without an agreement. Nevertheless, NAFTA is

significant because it was the most comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) negotiated at the

time and contained several groundbreaking provisions. A legacy of the agreement is that it has

served as a template or model for the new generation of FTAs that the United States later

negotiated and it also served as a template for certain provisions in multilateral trade negotiations

as part of the Uruguay Round.

The 113th Congress faces numerous issues related to international trade. Canada and Mexico are

the first and third largest U.S. trading partners, respectively. With the two countries participating

in the negotiations to conclude a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement among the

United States and 10 other countries, policy issues related to NAFTA continue to be of interest for

Congress. If negotiations progress, a TPP agreement could affect the rules and market access

commitments governing North American trade and investment since NAFTA entered into force. A

related trade policy issue in which the effects of NAFTA may be explored is the possible renewal

of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA; formerly known as “fast-track authority”) to provide

expedited procedures for the consideration of bills to implement trade agreements.

NAFTA was controversial when first proposed, mostly because it was the first FTA involving two

wealthy, developed countries and a developing country. The political debate surrounding the

agreement was divisive with proponents arguing that the agreement would help generate

thousands of jobs and reduce income disparity in the region, while opponents warned that the

agreement would cause huge job losses in the United States as companies moved production to

Mexico to lower costs. In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or

the large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S.

economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and

Mexico account for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm

adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their

economies.

The rising number of bilateral and regional trade agreements throughout the world and the rising

presence of China in Latin America could have implications for U.S. trade policy with its NAFTA

partners. Some proponents of open and rules-based trade maintain that a further deepening of

economic relations with Canada and Mexico will help promote a common trade agenda with

shared values and generate economic growth. Some opponents argue that the agreement has

caused worker displacement and that NAFTA needs to be reopened. One possible way of doing

this is through the proposed TPP. The ongoing TPP negotiations, launched in the fall of 2008,

may not result in a reopening of NAFTA, but could alter some of the rules and market access

commitments governing North American trade and investment.

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Market Opening Prior to NAFTA .................................................................................................... 2

The U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement of 1989...................................................................... 2

Mexico’s Pre-NAFTA Trade Liberalization Efforts .................................................................. 3

Overview of NAFTA Provisions ...................................................................................................... 5

Removal of Trade Barriers ........................................................................................................ 5

Services Trade Liberalization .................................................................................................... 7

Other Provisions ........................................................................................................................ 7

NAFTA Side Agreements on Labor and the Environment ........................................................ 8

Trade Trends and Economic Effects ................................................................................................ 9

U.S. Trade Trends with NAFTA Partners ................................................................................ 10

Effect on the U.S. Economy .................................................................................................... 12

U.S. Industries and Supply Chains .................................................................................... 13

Effect on Mexico ..................................................................................................................... 15

U.S.-Mexico Trade Market Shares .................................................................................... 16

U.S. and Mexican Foreign Direct Investment ................................................................... 17

Income Disparity ............................................................................................................... 17

Effect on Canada ..................................................................................................................... 18

U.S.-Canada Trade Market Shares .................................................................................... 18

U.S. and Canadian Foreign Direct Investment .................................................................. 20

Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 20

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) .............................................................................................. 21

Regulatory Cooperation ........................................................................................................... 22

Proposals for Deeper Regional Integration ............................................................................. 23

Figures

Figure 1. U.S. Trade with NAFTA Partners: 1993-2012 ............................................................... 11

Figure 2. Market Share as Percentage of Total Trade: Mexico and the United States ................... 16

Figure 3. Market Share as Percentage of Total Trade: Canada and the United States ................... 19

Tables

Table 1. U.S. Trade in Vehicles and Auto Parts: 1993 and 2011 .................................................... 14

Table A-1. U.S. Merchandise Trade with NAFTA Partners ........................................................... 25

Table A-2. U.S. Private Services Trade with NAFTA Partners ...................................................... 26

Table A-3. U.S. Trade with NAFTA Partners by Major Product Category: 2012 .......................... 27

Table A-4. U.S. Foreign Direct Investment Positions with Canada and Mexico ........................... 28

Appendixes

Appendix A. U.S. Merchandise Trade with NAFTA Partners ....................................................... 25

Appendix B. Mexico’s Protectionist Trade Policies Prior to NAFTA ........................................... 29

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 30

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Census

Household Economic Studies,  P70-134

EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH INSURANCE: 2010 [27 February 2013]

http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p70-134.pdf

[full-text, 20 pages]

APPENDIX [TABLES]

http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p70-134a.pdf

[full-text, 11 pages]

Press Release 27 February 2013
Census Bureau Reports Decline in Employment-Based Health Insurance
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/health_care_insurance/cb13-35.html

The rate of employment-based health insurance coverage declined from 64.4 percent in 1997 to 56.5 percent in 2010, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report, Employment-Based Health Insurance: 2010, released today.

Among employed individuals, employment-based coverage declined from 76.0 percent in 1997 to 70.2 percent in 2010. During this time period, the employment-based coverage rate for those not in the labor force declined from 45.4 percent to 38.6 percent and for unemployed individuals declined from 33.5 percent to 30.8 percent. Individuals not in the labor force are people without jobs who are not currently looking for work, while unemployed individuals are people without jobs who are actively seeking employment.

During the same period, among employed individuals without coverage the rate increased from 14.7 percent to 18.0 percent, and the rate for those not in the labor force increased from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent. A higher proportion of unemployed individuals were uninsured in 2010 (46.2 percent) than in 2005 (39.8 percent) and 2002 (43.1 percent).

“The report highlights the prevalence of employment-based health coverage among various socio-economic groups including coverage obtained outside the workplace,” said Hubert Janicki, an economist with the Census Bureau’s Health and Disability Statistics Branch. “Unemployed and individuals not in the labor force with employment-based coverage were generally covered by a previous employer’s plan or someone else’s, such as a spouse’s or a parent’s employer.”

Today’s report uses data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation to examine the characteristics of people with employer-provided health insurance coverage as well as the characteristics of employers that offer health insurance. The economic and demographic characteristics studied in this report include sex, race and ethnicity, age, family income and insurance status.

 The report finds that the likelihood of working for an employer that offers any health insurance benefits increased with family income. Individuals with family income less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level were the least likely to work for an employer that offered health insurance benefits. Among these low-income workers, 43.3 percent were employed in firms that offered health insurance benefits. In comparison, workers with family income 401 percent and above of the federal poverty level were the most likely to work for an employer that offered health benefits (80.9 percent). For reference, 100 percent of the federal poverty level for a family of four was $22,113 in 2010.

The report details reasons for nonparticipation in an employer’s health insurance plan. The report finds that the fraction of workers that reference “ineligibility” as the main reason for nonparticipation in an employer’s health insurance plan decreased from 37.1 percent in 1997 to 32.2 percent in 2010. Nonparticipating employees were not eligible to participate in the employer’s health insurance plan typically because they were temporary, worked part time or had not completed their probationary period.

Other highlights:

--In 2010, 71.1 percent of employed individuals age 15 and older worked for an employer that offered health insurance benefits to any of its employees.

--42.9 percent of individuals who did not complete high school worked for an employer that offered health insurance to any of its employees, compared with 78.9 percent for individuals with a college degree.

--75.7 percent of workers age 45 to 64 worked for an employer that offered health insurance benefits, compared with 60.0 percent for workers 19 to 25.

--Among married couples with only one member employed in a firm that offered health insurance benefits, 68.7 percent of married couples provided coverage for the spouse.

--While 37.6 percent of firms with 0 to 24 employees offered more than one health insurance plan, 65.6 percent of firms with 1,000 or more employees offered more than one plan.

 --About 1.1 percent of nonparticipating workers whose employer offered health insurance benefits were not insured by their employer because they were denied coverage.

 --Among nonparticipating workers whose employer offered health insurance benefits, approximately half (50.4 percent) declined coverage by choice.

 --The two most common reasons among workers who chose not to obtain health insurance coverage through their employer were health insurance obtained through another source (66.4 percent) and cost (27.4 percent).

-X-

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Border Security: Understanding Threats at U.S. Borders

Marc R. Rosenblum, Specialist in Immigration Policy

Jerome P. Bjelopera, Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism

Kristin M. Finklea, Specialist in Domestic Security

February 21, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42969.pdf

[full-text, 33 pages]

Summary

The United States confronts a wide array of threats at U.S. borders, ranging from terrorists who

may have weapons of mass destruction, to transnational criminals smuggling drugs or counterfeit

goods, to unauthorized migrants intending to live and work in the United States. Given this

diversity of threats, how may Congress and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) set

border security priorities and allocate scarce enforcement resources?

In general, DHS’s answer to this question is organized around risk management, a process that

involves risk assessment and the allocation of resources based on a cost-benefit analysis. This

report focuses on the first part of this process by identifying border threats and describing a

framework for understanding risks at U.S. borders. DHS employs models to classify threats as

relatively high- or low-risk for certain planning and budgeting exercises and to implement certain

border security programs. Members of Congress may wish to use similar models to evaluate the

costs and benefits of potential border security policies and to allocate border enforcement

resources. This report discusses some of the issues involved in modeling border-related threats.

Understanding border risks begins with identifying key threats. At their roots, border-related

threats are closely linked to the flow of people (travelers) and goods (cargo) from one country to

another. Any smuggled item or individual hidden among the legitimate flows potentially

constitutes a threat to U.S. security or interests.

The intentions and actions of unauthorized travelers separate them into different threat categories,

including terrorists, transnational criminals, and other illegal migrants.

Illegal goods are distinguished by their inherent legitimacy or illegitimacy. Certain weapons,

illegal drugs, and counterfeit goods are always illegal and categorically prohibited, while other

goods are legal under most circumstances, but become illegitimate if they are smuggled to avoid

enforcement of specific laws, taxes, or regulations.

The risks associated with these diverse types of threats may be modeled as a function of (1) the

likelihood that the threat will be realized, and (2) the potential consequences of a given threat. In

practice, however, estimating likelihood and evaluating potential consequences are challenging

tasks, particularly when it comes to the diversity and complexity of border threats. Assessing

border threats is also difficult because terrorists, criminals, and migrants are strategic actors who

may adapt to border defenses. This report describes some of these challenges, and suggests

questions policymakers may ask to develop their own “maps” of border risks. Several potential

border threats are described, and the report summarizes what is known about their likelihood and

consequences.

The report concludes by discussing how risk assessment may interact with border security

policymaking. Given the uncertainty and the subjective judgments involved in modeling risk,

policymakers may struggle to reach a consensus on border priorities. Nonetheless, a systematic

approach to studying border threats may help clarify the types of policy tradeoffs lawmakers

confront at the border.

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Types of Border Threats................................................................................................................... 2

Threat Actors ............................................................................................................................. 6

Transnational Terrorists ....................................................................................................... 6

Transnational Criminals ...................................................................................................... 7

Unauthorized Migrants ........................................................................................................ 8

Illegal Goods ........................................................................................................................... 10

Categorically Prohibited .................................................................................................... 10

Illegal via Smuggling ........................................................................................................ 12

A Framework for Assessing Border Threats .................................................................................. 13

DHS and Risk Management .................................................................................................... 13

Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 16

Understanding Border Threats ....................................................................................................... 18

Estimating the Likelihood of Border Threats .......................................................................... 19

Likelihood as Past Frequency ........................................................................................... 19

Likelihood as Expected Frequency ................................................................................... 20

The Strategic Actor Problem ............................................................................................. 22

Evaluating Potential Consequences of Border Threats............................................................ 22

Defining Consequences ..................................................................................................... 22

Measuring Consequences .................................................................................................. 23

Valuing Consequences....................................................................................................... 24

Assessment of Selected Border Threats .................................................................................. 25

Concluding Comments: Policymaking Challenges ....................................................................... 27

Figures

Figure 1. Border Threats and DHS Mission .................................................................................... 4

Figure 2. Types of Threat Actors ................................................................................................... 10

Figure 3. Two-Dimensional Risk Space ........................................................................................ 17

Figure 4. Border Policymaking Context ........................................................................................ 28

Tables

Table 1. Selected Border Threats ................................................................................................... 26

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 30

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research service (CRS)

Insourcing Functions Performed by Federal Contractors: Legal Issues

Kate M. Manuel, Legislative Attorney

Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney

February 22, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41810.pdf

[full-text, 26 pages]

Summary

Recent Congresses and the Obama Administration have taken numerous actions to promote

“insourcing,” or the use of government personnel to perform functions that contractors have

performed on behalf of federal agencies. Among other things, the 109th through the 111th

Congresses enacted statutes requiring the development of policies and guidelines to ensure that

agencies “consider” using government employees to perform functions previously performed by

contractors, as well as any new functions. The Obama Administration has similarly promoted

insourcing, with officials calling for consideration of insourcing in various workforce

management initiatives.

Certain insourcing initiatives of the Department of Defense (DOD), in particular, prompted legal

challenges alleging that DOD failed to comply with applicable guidelines when insourcing

specific functions. The only court to reach the issue assumed, without deciding, that certain

guidelines were legally binding. However, other courts have not addressed this issue because of

questions about jurisdiction and standing. The parties initially conceded that such suits were

cognizable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which permits challenges to agency

actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with

the law,” although the government has recently asserted that insourcing determinations are

committed to agency discretion by law and, thus, not reviewable by the courts.

At first, there was some uncertainty as to whether the U.S. Court of Federal Claims had

jurisdiction over such suits under the Administrative Disputes Resolution Act of 1996, or whether

the federal district courts had jurisdiction under the APA. However, most courts to address the

issue have found that the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to

insourcing determinations because such determinations are made in connection with “proposed

procurements” and at least some contractors are “interested parties.” Later, questions arose about

whether contractors who meet the statutory standing requirements (i.e., are “interested parties”)

must also meet prudential standing requirements. These judicially self-imposed limits on the

exercise of jurisdiction ensure that plaintiffs are within the “zone of interests” to be protected by the

statutes they seek to enforce. Initially, judges on the Court of Federal Claims reached differing conclusions

as to whether prudential standing requirements applied, although later decisions may suggest that

any prudential standing requirements that apply could potentially be easily met. Most recently, the

court has had to determine whether vendors whose contracts have expired have standing to

challenge insourcing determinations, or whether such challenges are moot.

Other provisions of law could also potentially constrain whether and how agencies may proceed

with insourcing in specific circumstances, or limit the activities that former contractor employees

may perform after being hired by the federal government. These include (1) contract law, under

which agencies could be found to have constructively terminated certain requirements contracts

by augmenting their in-house capacity to perform services provided for in the contract; (2) civil

service law, which would generally limit “direct hires” of contractor employees; and (3) ethics

law, which could limit the involvement of former contractor employees in certain agency actions.

Members of the 112th Congress enacted legislation (P.L. 112-239) that calls for the Office of

Management and Budget to establish “procedures and methodologies” for use by agencies in

deciding whether to insource functions performed by small businesses, including procedures for

identifying which contracts are considered for conversion and for comparing the costs of

performance by contractor personnel with the costs of performance by government personnel.

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Legal Issues ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Administrative Procedure Act and Insourcing Guidelines ........................................................ 5

Jurisdiction of the Federal District Courts or the Court of Federal Claims ......................... 6

Prudential Standing ........................................................................................................... 10

Expired Contracts and Mootness ....................................................................................... 12

Whether Particular Guidelines Are Binding ...................................................................... 14

Constructive Termination or Breach of Requirements Contracts ............................................ 15

Civil Service Laws and Limitations on “Direct Hires” ........................................................... 17

Ethics Laws and the Activities of Former Contractor Employees ........................................... 18

Small Business Law ................................................................................................................ 20

Congressional Actions ................................................................................................................... 21

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 23

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

European Commission

EuroStat

BASIC FIGURES ON THE EU SPRING 2013 EDITION [26 February 2013]

http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/basic-figures-on-the-eu-pbKSGL13001/

or

http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/basic-figures-on-the-eu-pbKSGL13001/downloads/KS-GL-13-001-EN-C/KSGL13001ENC_002.pdf;pgid=y8dIS7GUWMdSR0EAlMEUUsWb0000a5vn7EFV;sid=j13EGqnH6m7ECvjpnOxavcviwj7aaK4UiY4=?FileName=KSGL13001ENC_002.pdf&SKU=KSGL13001ENC_PDF&CatalogueNumber=KS-GL-13-001-EN-C

[full-text, 7 pages]

The tables show information for the EU, the euro area, the EU

Member States and three EFTA countries. The euro area (EA-17) is

composed of: Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain,

France, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria,

Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia and Finland. The EU (EU-27) includes

the EA-17 countries and also: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark,

Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Sweden and the United

Kingdom. The three EFTA countries covered are: Iceland, Norway

and Switzerland.

The information presented in this short guide is generally based

on fixed EU and euro area aggregates for 27 and 17 Member States

respectively – however, the data for inflation is based on moving

aggregates that reflect the membership of the EU and euro area over

time. Quarterly growth rates are expressed in relation to the previous

quarter. Quarterly rates are generally calculated using seasonally

adjusted data, although rates for the public balance, government debt

and long-term unemployment are based on non seasonally adjusted

data. Furthermore, annual rates of change for inflation are also based

on non seasonally adjusted data.

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Beyond the Numbers, February 2013, vol.2, no. 5

PRICES & SPENDING

EXPENDITURES OF URBAN AND RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN 2011 [25 February 2013]

http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/expenditures-of-urban-and-rural-households-in-2011.htm

or

http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/pdf/expenditures-of-urban-and-rural-households-in-2011.pdf

[full-text, 7 pages]

The United States is a nation of great diversity. Large houses and big red barns are found on the open farmlands of the Midwest while apartments and coffee shops occupy the corners of busy city streets. The varying landscapes shape the lives, customs, and spending habits of Americans. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE), this Beyond the Numbers article examines demographic characteristics and spending habits of urban and rural households in the United States in 2011. In total, approximately 92 percent of households were urban and 8 percent were rural.¹ The following data highlight important differences between consumer expenditures by rural and urban households in 2011:

·         Urban households spent $7,808 (18 percent) more than rural households.

·         Urban households received $15,779 (32 percent) more in yearly income than rural households.²

·         Higher housing expenditures by urban consumers accounted for about two-thirds of the difference in overall spending between urban and rural households.

·         Rural households spent 32 percent more on prescription and nonprescription drugs than urban households.

·         Urban households spent 28 percent more on food away from home and 5 percent less on food at home than rural households. Overall, urban households spent 7 percent more on food than rural households.

·         Rural households spent more on gasoline and motor oil, and spent a higher percentage of their car and truck budgets on used vehicles. In the transportation spending category, urban households spent more on airline fares.

·         Although rural and urban households spent about the same on entertainment, rural households spent more on pets, and urban households spent more on fees and admissions.

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Asian Development Bank (ADB)

CIVIL SOCIETY BRIEFS

http://www.adb.org/publications/search/5801

Description:

With a view to strengthening ADB cooperation with civil society organizations (CSOs), the NGO and Civil Society Center periodically prepares reports on the context for CSO activities in various developing countries in Asia and the Pacific. These studies contribute to awareness of the important role that CSOs play in promoting development across the Asia-Pacific region. The reports are often prepared by NGOs or with substantial input from NGOs.

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin Foundation)

European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO)

EUROPEAN LEVEL

Parliament calls for EU-level legislation on restructuring [25 February 2013]

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2013/01/articles/eu1301021i.htm

The European Parliament has endorsed a report which calls on the European Commission to submit a legislative proposal for anticipation and management of change and restructuring. It also called for the Commission to consult with the social partners before coming back with its proposal. The report, drawn up by Spanish socialist member Alejandro Cercas, gained the support of a large majority of MEPs with 503 voting in favour and 107 voting against.

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.