Exports of Indian roses picks up ahead of Valentine’s Day

Rose exports from India are expected to show record high in the season around Valentine’s Day this year with the Taj Mahal stem emerging as the preferred flower for exporters.

Exporters have already begun shipping the rose stems to Europe, West Asia and Australia a week ahead of the Valentine’s Day and would send more during this week. The increased orders for exports comes at a time when the flower growers were struggling with slow domestic sales due to demonetisation. Last year, Valentine’s Day fell on a weekend dampening exports from India.

More than 5 million rose stems are expected to be exported this year between February 4 and February 14 and most sought after variety is Taj Mahal (red rose) costing between Rs 12 to Rs 16 per stem.

“This year 95 per cent of the roses that are being exported are the Taj Mahal variety,” said Jayprakash Rao, general secretary, South India Floriculture Association. The Taj Mahal variety is deep red in colour and grown around Bengaluru and Krishnagiri, the border district in Tamil Nadu.

The southern states account for majority of rose exports from the country.

“Valentine’s Day is mainly celebrated in offices, schools and colleges. Since it was a Sunday last year the demand had gone down. However, this year we see the demand coming back to normal. While the cost per stem remains the same as last year the volumes are much higher. Last year was the worst year for exports during Valentine’s’ season. “said Yogesh N, partner at Red Blossom.

Red Blossom expects exports to grow six times to 3 lakh stems this year as against 50,000 last year as demand picks up from customers across the globe.

Pawan K Kumar, head of Borgiun Flora said that along with the fact that Valentines Day was on a Sunday last year ,the Chinese New Year also affected the exports.

“Most of the small florists outside are Chinese, since the Chinese New Year was nearby they all went back to their country for a month this significantly resulted in drops in export. However, this year business has picked up. There is already a good traction and expected to grow further by Tuesday, “added Kumar.

Kumar this year is expecting to export close to 2 lakh rose Valentine’s Day stems to Australia, Newzealand, Malaysia and Singapore. While the his cost range between Rs 10 to Rs 16. Every year India export around 14 million flower stems of various variety and the flower export market of India is worth Rs 40 to 55 crore.

Along with exporting rose stems outside the country, Bengaluru also sees a huge traction from various states in the country during the Valentine’s season. This year the domestic market has increased by 8 to 10 per cent as compared to last year.

“Around 40 to 50 lakh rose stems will be sent to various states in the country. Last year, the conditions were not very favourable for the roses. However, this year the weather has been good giving a good yield. Even in India the Taj Mahal variety is most sought after and considering Valentine’s day is on Tuesday, there is a good demand from college and school students,” said Vijay Kulkarni, General Manager, International Flower Auction Bangalore Limited.

Demonetisation has hit domestic flower sales badly due to non-availability of cash with consumers. Sales were 70-80% lower during initial few weeks of demonetisation. Business sentiment, however, improved gradually with liquidity easing. Still, overall flower demand from domestic market continued to remain muted this season despite ongoing wedding season.

Demand has also been muted from overseas markets this Valentine’s Day. While volume is unlikely to get impacted, realisation for Indian exporters would certainly decline due to a sharp appreciation in the euro against the dollar. Euro zone is India’s one of the largest importers of floriculture. Euro has appreciated by around 5% since September to trade currently at Rs 71.91 against the rupee as against Rs 75 in September.

Donald Trump’s immigration ban: Here are the best arguments against it

Is President Trump’s recent executive order on immigrants and refugees legal?

It’s a surprisingly tricky question.

The order arguably violates both a federal statute and one or more sections of the Constitution – depending on whether the immigrant is already in the U.S. In the end, opponents’ best hope for undoing the order might rest on the separation of church and state.

Trump’s order bars the entry of any refugee for 120 days, and Syrian refugees indefinitely. It also bans citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen from entering the U.S. for 90 days. This order potentially affects more than 20,000 refugees, along with thousands of students nationwide. Depending on how it is enforced, it could also impact as many as hundreds of thousands of green card holders, or immigrants with permanent residency.

Many opponents have challenged the order in court.

A U.S. District Court judge in Brooklyn, New York, issued a ruling that halted the enforcement of Trump’s executive order the day after he signed it. Judges in at least four other states followed suit.

Trump’s supporters defend the order’s legality based on a federal immigration statute passed in 1952 that allows the president to suspend the U.S. entry of “any class of aliens.” But, as a former U.S. Justice Department lawyer and a law professor, I believe there are at least four possible arguments challenging the legality of the order.

Anti-discrimination statute

There is, critically, another federal statute that outlaws discriminating against a person regarding issuing visas based on the person’s “nationality, place of birth, or place of residence,” which Trump’s order clearly does. This second statute was passed in 1965 and is more specific than the 1952 statute. What’s more, courts have enforced this anti-discrimination ban strictly. This is the strongest legal argument against President Trump’s order.

But Congress can amend or repeal the 1965 statute, as it can any law. A Republican-controlled Congress might do that, although concerns raised by some GOP lawmakers may make that unlikely.

Due process and equal protection

The recent court orders halting enforcement of the Trump order relied on a legal argument that it violated due process or equal protection under the Constitution. Due process means that people get US Immigration Ban procedural safeguards-like advance notice, a hearing before a neutral decision-maker and a chance to tell their side of the story-before the government takes away their liberty. Equal protection means the government must treat people equally, and can’t discriminate on the basis of race, alien status, nationality, and other irrelevant factors.

As the Supreme Court has said, even immigrants who are not citizens or green card holders have due process and equal protection rights, if – and only if – they are physically here in the U.S. That’s why the recent court orders on due process and equal protection help only individuals who were in the States at the time the court ruled.

Given the rushed, chaotic manner in which the recent order was drafted and enforced, with no set chance for affected individuals to plead their case, maybe there are some valid due process arguments against the ban. But presumably, those can be fixed by slowing down and letting people have their say. Once that’s done, the remaining issue is whether the executive order violates equal protection by intentionally discriminating against Muslims.

Trump denies the order is a “Muslim ban,” even though he called for exactly that during the campaign, and each of the seven countries subject to the ban is majority Muslim. In explaining why those seven countries were chosen, the order itself cites the Obama-era law stating that persons who in recent years have visited one of these seven terrorism-prone nations would not be eligible under a “visa waiver” program. Similarly, says Trump, the defining characteristic here is terrorist danger, not religion. That’s why only seven of more than 40 majority Muslim countries are affected. (Note that the Obama-era rule isn’t based on nationality, but rather on whether someone of any nationality visited the danger zone since 2011 – a criterion not outlawed by the 1965 statute.)

One problem with Trump’s argument is that the order also seems to prioritize admitting Christian refugees. It does this by saying that once the 120-day ban on all refugees expires, priority goes to those of “a minority religion in the individual’s country.”

Supporters can rightly argue this “minority religion” language is neutral. It never mentions Muslims or Christians. But, as that neutral language interacts with the country-specific ban targeting seven Muslim countries, the two can’t help but disproportionately help Christians. Indeed, just days before signing the order, Trump told the Christian Broadcasting Network he intended to prioritize Christian refugees.

Separation of church and state

That brings us to the final legal argument against the president’s order. By picking favorites among religions, it violates the separation of church and state under the Constitution’s Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Though Establishment Clause law is often murky, one clear point is that the government can’t favor one religious denomination over another.

This may be the most important of the constitutional theories involved in this case because it may have the broadest scope.