Escalating Tariffs on Mexico - Do You Agree?

[Golden Duck 7,203]

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

People do realize that until the early 20th Century, the tariff is how the government raised money.  Today, it can be an effective tool to correct some bad situation.  There might be short term pain but it'll produce long term gain.  In this case we get cheap reliable yet perishable produce from Mexico.  Because of the fact that what we get is perishable, where else is Mexico going to sell that produce?  Where is that American steel will?  Have we become victims?  People can't survive not having avocados or blueberries for a while? 

 

The vast majority of illegal low-skilled labor are not here to work but to receive monetary support.  In return, they bring into this country disease, poverty, and crime.  That's not a smart trade off.  The low unemployment rate is due to millions of Americans returning to the workforce.  At some point when jobs become saturated, the unemployment rate will begin to tick upward.  This will be when the wages begin to fall because too many illegal low-skill labor will have flooded the workforce.  This will cause Americans to leave the workforce again.

It's still a measure for raising revenue.

Prior to GATT it was also a protectionist measure.  The WTO has recently reviewed Russia's measures against Ukraine based on national security. The USA has shown interest in this case and offered comment.

The explanation of trade tariffs given by @DarkHunter is satisfactory and he alludes to preferential effect tariffs can have. Indeed, this is why there are preferential measures for developing countries - form of industry assistance.

The proposed escalating tariffs on Mexican imports are same measures you would implement to assist USA industry by protecting it from competition with Mexico. Trump's implementation of trade measure as remedy for illegal immigration is sure to generate complaint to the WTO.

As @DarkHunter says, it will affect the Mexican economy - he's right. That's why there are complaints to GATT/WTO. But, he doesn't give the details what the results will be.

It will increase the numbers, or supply, of people in Mexico looking for jobs or welfare. The very things Trump is trying to protect the USA from.

Can you imagine how likes of Milton Friedman would react to this idea?

 

Edited June 1 by Golden Duck

[Desertrat56 5,877]

13 hours ago, and then said:

I have always supported legal immigration.  The numbers here are the difference.  Look into it more carefully and you'll understand.  We either have a sovereign country with borders or we don't.  Several diseases that we had considered conquered are reappearing and the numbers of illegals are so great that they cannot be housed, they simply have to be released.  My guess is that none of them are vying for your job but they are driving down the wages of the low education types every day.  This isn't a hatred or xenophobia issue, man.  This is a literal invasion from Central America and the people who are in charge of defending our border are all saying so in unison.  Do we just ignore them?

The president made overtures to the Congress and they stiff-armed him.  He asked Obrador and again was told to pound sand.  He got 1.5 billion promised from the Pentagon and a Liberal judge stopped that.  We have hundreds of thousands of illegals flooding across our southern border.  WHAT, exactly, would y'all have him do?  Nothing?  Is everything that's occurring down there okay in your mind?  Should we just open the gates to millions?

Do you support the U.S. troops being in the  middle east?  Maybe what has to happen is we send troups to South America to help the people who are flocking to the U.S. instead of messing around in the Middle East.  Since the U.S. claims to be the police of the world, why are we not policing South America instead of the Middle East? 

Those people are not flocking to the U.S. just for fun or to take our government down or even to steal anything from any of us (yes, there may be a few that are, but most are not).  There is obviously a problem and it has nothing to do with Mexico or immigration laws.  We have the laws in place and if they all could get across the border legally that is how they would choose to do it, but they are fleeing, not just taking a trip to move to the U.S. by hiking hundreds of miles with their children, then swimming across a river or paying a coyote to get them across the border.  Most of them are desperate.

  The president has made no reasonable "overtures" to Congress, and the stiff arming is a problem as it is bipartisan, but even some republicans are turning down his "overtures", which almost always sound more like threats.  

And as for That Elephant, we need to get rid of the stranglehold the republican-democratic party has on our political process.  There is no rationality to choosing a side and fighting over minutiae that keeps the real issues from being solved, including illegal immigration.

[Big Jim 3,701]

So far, all of the reactions I've read are reacting to the most extreme effect of the maximum tariff.  I don't think Trump ever had any intention of implementing the entire progression of tariffs laid out in the plan.  I think his intention was to get the attention of Mexico and coerce their cooperation.  They've ignored us long enough.  And it has worked.  The Mexican President has already requested a meeting with Trump.  As for the effect of the tariff on American consumers, I haven't seen anyone mention that a majority of goods are discretionary purchases.  When I go the grocery store I consider not just my overall budget but the price to value to need ratio of everything I pick up.  If tomatoes are too high this week I skip tomatoes.  The same for everything else.  Few things that we purchase, from tomatoes to trucks, are made out of desperation.  If the price is too high, we wait or shop around.  So the normal reaction to the tariffs will affect Mexico much more than it will the average consumer.  If I skip buying some products from Mexico, perhaps without even knowing where they come from, based solely on price, it will be one thing that I defer or do without.  But when millions do it Mexico will notice.  I've seen the various estimates from some members here about the quantity of produce we import.  But we're heading into summer when produce stands crop up all over the country.  There will be thousands of alternate sources for all but the most exotic of choices and patriots across the country may get behind Trump's plan and boycott Mexican produce as much as possible. Don't think farmers won't also take advantage by posting signs touting "grown in the USA".  It's not as if Mexico can't do anything about stemming the flow of migrants through their country, they just didn't see any advantage to expending the effort.  Now they will.  When a 2000 person caravan leaves Central America, if Mexico interdicts one per mile there will be no one left to cross into America.

Edited June 1 by Big Jim
puntuation

[Dumbledore the Awesome 45,847]

1 hour ago, Big Jim said:

if Mexico interdicts one per mile there will be no one left to cross into America.

interdicts is usually a term associated with military action. So you'r recommending taking out one for every mile (with snipers?) in order to teach all the rest a lesson? 

[Big Jim 3,701]

28 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

interdicts is usually a term associated with military action. So you'r recommending taking out one for every mile (with snipers?) in order to teach all the rest a lesson? 

No, silly.  Don't be stupid.  Note #2 of the definition.  Nothing exclusively military.  No snipers mentioned.  I almost wrote "arrest" but at the last second changed it to "interdict" to allow for a broader range of action.

VERB

NORTH AMERICAN

1. prohibit or forbid (something).

   "society will never interdict sex"

   synonyms:

   prohibit · forbid · ban · bar · veto · proscribe · make illegal ·

   [more]
2. intercept and prevent the movement of (a prohibited commodity or person).

   "the police established roadblocks throughout the country for interdicting drugs"

   synonyms:

   intercept · stop · head off · cut off · obstruct · impede · interrupt · block ·

    

     

     

    

 

[Uncle Sam 2,811]

17 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

You don't care because you don't think it will affect you. You  might be right. 

But if we put the financial screws to Mexico and their factories began to shut down, they can join the Hondurans and Nicaraguans and Guatemalans heading north.  Instead of 100,000 at a time it will be 300,000 at a time.   Add to that 10-20,000 out of work auto plant employees who can't build cars without spare parts and they will be coming for your job too.    How about we try to fix things without making other things worse?

I know I will be affected. Life isn't safe and protected with bubble wrap. Sometimes we have to TAKE a hit to get the problem under control. I can't always run away from something because it will hurt, just like vaccines, it will hurt for a bit and then I will be protected.

Edited June 1 by Uncle Sam

[Tatetopa 10,531]

2 hours ago, Big Jim said:

So far, all of the reactions I've read are reacting to the most extreme effect of the maximum tariff.  I don't think Trump ever had any intention of implementing the entire progression of tariffs laid out in the plan.  I think his intention was to get the attention of Mexico and coerce their cooperation.  They've ignored us long enough.  And it has worked.  The Mexican President has already requested a meeting with Trump.  As for the effect of the tariff on American consumers, I haven't seen anyone mention that a majority of goods are discretionary purchases.  When I go the grocery store I consider not just my overall budget but the price to value to need ratio of everything I pick up.  If tomatoes are too high this week I skip tomatoes.  The same for everything else.  Few things that we purchase, from tomatoes to trucks, are made out of desperation.  If the price is too high, we wait or shop around.  So the normal reaction to the tariffs will affect Mexico much more than it will the average consumer.  If I skip buying some products from Mexico, perhaps without even knowing where they come from, based solely on price, it will be one thing that I defer or do without.  But when millions do it Mexico will notice.  I've seen the various estimates from some members here about the quantity of produce we import.  But we're heading into summer when produce stands crop up all over the country.  There will be thousands of alternate sources for all but the most exotic of choices and patriots across the country may get behind Trump's plan and boycott Mexican produce as much as possible. Don't think farmers won't also take advantage by posting signs touting "grown in the USA".  It's not as if Mexico can't do anything about stemming the flow of migrants through their country, they just didn't see any advantage to expending the effort.  Now they will.  When a 2000 person caravan leaves Central America, if Mexico interdicts one per mile there will be no one left to cross into America.

Edited 2 hours ago by Big Jim

According to the news I read, they have been making efforts both to stop the caravans and to keep them in Mexico while they are waiting for a determination on asylum requests.  They have not been ignoring our requests or blowing us off, though it might not receive the priority we think it does.

The new Mexican President said he wanted to focus on fixing Mexican problems including drugs and corruption.  He did not want to focus on international affairs hence his easy agreement with US demands on the new trade agreement.  He thought if he did that the US would be happy and he could focus on cleaning up Mexico.  That would help us considerably and if their mayors, reporters, and police chiefs were not being assassinated, they would have more resources to focus on the border.

If Obrador can fix Mexico and make it safer to live in and provide more jobs, it gives people more incentive to stay and not try to cross the border.  That would help us too.  Maybe our goals could be more quickly achieved with cooperation and support thanthreats.  There is that old saying about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar.  It doesn't make you soft or disrespected, just smart and successful.

[Tatetopa 10,531]

7 minutes ago, Uncle Sam said:

I know I will be affected. Life isn't safe and protected with bubble wrap. Sometimes we have to TAKE a hit to get the problem under control.

The key here is being smart and getting the problem under control.  I am all for that.   I want secure borders and an immigration policy that serves the people and economy of the United States. 

Where have threats gotten the administration in the US?

There was a GOP controlled Congress for the first two years of the administration.   They offered various amounts from $5 to $1.6 billion.  Gotta have more or the government gets shut down.   The threat didn't work and the government got shut down.  Democrats now control the House.  The great deal maker resorted to threats and couldn't get his own party to allocate the enough money for the entire wall, but we could at least start the process.

Congress has done nothing to reform immigration policy.  The President has not helped that process along either.

So for two years it appears the President's signature election promise has not gotten into high gear.  The President has taken a hit, our country has taken a hit, US citizens have taken a hit and nothing has gotten any better.  Maybe the President who has a reputation for being a great deal maker will start making great deals.  He can start in the US and if that works, he can probably make a good deal with Mexico.

Although, he said we made a great deal for the US in the new trade agreement with Mexico and Canada.  He claimed it was so much better than NAFTA which was a bad deal for us.   And Mexico gave the President some important concessions to get that agreement finalized.  Now he says, in spite of our agreement waiting for approval, I am going to slap you with tariffs. The lesson is not respect but distrust.  No country can trust the US when it makes an agreement.  

That does not solve our problem.  

[Big Jim 3,701]

19 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

According to the news I read, they have been making efforts both to stop the caravans and to keep them in Mexico while they are waiting for a determination on asylum requests.  They have not been ignoring our requests or blowing us off, though it might not receive the priority we think it does.

The new Mexican President said he wanted to focus on fixing Mexican problems including drugs and corruption.  He did not want to focus on international affairs hence his easy agreement with US demands on the new trade agreement.  He thought if he did that the US would be happy and he could focus on cleaning up Mexico.  That would help us considerably and if their mayors, reporters, and police chiefs were not being assassinated, they would have more resources to focus on the border.

If Obrador can fix Mexico and make it safer to live in and provide more jobs, it gives people more incentive to stay and not try to cross the border.  That would help us too.  Maybe our goals could be more quickly achieved with cooperation and support thanthreats.  There is that old saying about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar.  It doesn't make you soft or disrespected, just smart and successful.

Fixing Mexico only fixes half the problem.  I was under the impression that the tariffs were in response to Mexico allowing Central Americans to pass through unimpeded, not aimed at stopping Mexicans, per se.  Mexico is in fact responsible for two aspects of our immigration problem.  Not being a country where people want to live and not protecting their own southern border.  It's plain that they tolerate the intrusions because they know that in a few weeks it will be America's problem.  I believe that is what Trump is trying to stop.

[Tatetopa 10,531]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-meat-china-putin-idUSKCN1NX1C4?fbclid=IwAR2jsul3cV40MLNzrmYlr_n2MLtdZXO5ZS6Nb-NGzjoPa00Xr850G0gb-AM

Putin says Russia will supply soy beans, poultry meat to China

Sometimes tariffs are not so easy to back out of as they are to impose.

[OverSword 43,489]

15 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The vast majority of illegal low-skilled labor are not here to work but to receive monetary support. 

What a frickin load of bullcrap. Almost every time I hear a Spanish accent it’s somebody on a construction site, in a restaurant kitchen, delivering supplies to my office, etc...

[Tatetopa 10,531]

1 hour ago, Big Jim said:

Fixing Mexico only fixes half the problem.  I was under the impression that the tariffs were in response to Mexico allowing Central Americans to pass through unimpeded, not aimed at stopping Mexicans, per se.  Mexico is in fact responsible for two aspects of our immigration problem.  Not being a country where people want to live and not protecting their own southern border.  It's plain that they tolerate the intrusions because they know that in a few weeks it will be America's problem.  I believe that is what Trump is trying to stop.

Maybe fixing Mexico fixes more than half of the problem.  But if it works, maybe we can fix the other Central American countries as well.

We can't depend on Mexico to defend our country.  That is our job and that is what a wall is supposed to do.  You can't rely on other people to fix your problems if you are unwilling to fix them yourself.

[and then 36,162]

20 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

How about we try to fix things without making other things worse?

Any suggestions other than just opening the gates and letting them enter by the millions?

[and then 36,162]

13 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

The very things Trump is trying to protect the USA from.

Do you realize that Mexico can quickly reverse this Tariff by attempting to help slow the flow?  Why, on earth, is that a bad thing?  When did every human being on the planet that wants to be in America, gain that right?

[and then 36,162]

7 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Those people are not flocking to the U.S. just for fun or to take our government down or even to steal anything from any of us (yes, there may be a few that are, but most are not).  There is obviously a problem and it has nothing to do with Mexico or immigration laws

The numbers are the issue.  We cannot accept millions of illegals without any kind of vetting or housing or healthcare being available for them.  Look at L.A. San Fran and Portland and you'll see the future unless someone has the courage to stand and say NO MORE!  The hypocrites in Liberal states that desire open borders but raise hell about their sanctuaries bearing more of the burden are a perfect example of what's wrong in the nation.  The "sanctuary" issue is just a modern form of "nullification".  I expect that to work quite well the next time all the states are told which bathrooms their children MUST go to or being forced to give up their right to keep and bear arms. Invite them to your city and stand in line waiting for healthcare or housing or for a cop when you need one.  Those who see hundreds of thousands of illegals per year as a nonexistent problem are,m quite frankly, partisan shills who aren't being asked to pay the freight and ultimately it will lead to anger and chaos where these poor, wee souls land.

[Big Jim 3,701]

26 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Maybe fixing Mexico fixes more than half of the problem.  But if it works, maybe we can fix the other Central American countries as well.

We can't depend on Mexico to defend our country.  That is our job and that is what a wall is supposed to do.  You can't rely on other people to fix your problems if you are unwilling to fix them yourself.

We have allies around the world and we work cooperatively to meet challenges and for mutual defense.  Mexico is supposed to be our ally but they are giving aid and shelter to the invaders of our country.   We're not asking them to defend us, just to cooperate.  It is not up to us to fix other countries.  But, when the money for the wall was being denied by Congress they voted to give twice as much to the Central American countries.  Clearly that didn't fix the problem either.  Like you say, that's what the wall is supposed to do, but Congress doesn't see it that way.  They'd rather waste money on ineffective strategies rather than work with Trump on things that will work.

[Big Jim 3,701]

56 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Maybe fixing Mexico fixes more than half of the problem.  But if it works, maybe we can fix the other Central American countries as well.

We can't depend on Mexico to defend our country.  That is our job and that is what a wall is supposed to do.  You can't rely on other people to fix your problems if you are unwilling to fix them yourself.

Do you notice the contradiction in the bolded parts?  Why should we always be the one to fix others' problems and yet not expect some assistance for ours?

 

[OverSword 43,489]

I’m in agreement with those that are peeved that Mexico seems to be aiding refugees from further south reach the USA, you would think that a country with immigration laws as strict as Mexico would make it harder for those people to access their nation to begin with, and this may be what trump is trying to address.  

But like I said earlier, make it easier for workers to come here legally and it free’s up resources to deal with the refugee issue.

I truly believe that our real problem is that our current system is resistant to the direction that, for lack of a better term, the market wants to go. There are more jobs to be filled by migrant workers than work visas issued. On top of that getting one of these visas is more difficult than it needs to be. The inevitable result is people come here to work anyway. Economic systems are organic in a way. Recognizing and taking steps to accommodate the demands of the market makes the market work better and benefits everyone. Resisting and impeding the natural flow of the market hurts everyone and resisting and impeding is what we are and have been doing for decades. We could all be living much better and more prosperous lives but instead we cheer as the government continually shoots us in the foot.

[Big Jim 3,701]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

There are more jobs to be filled by migrant workers than work visas issued. On top of that getting one of these visas is more difficult than it needs to be. The inevitable result is people come here to work anyway.

Visas can't be issued to people who don't apply for them.  Neither does it matter if the process is easy or difficult.  When we see people crammed into vans being smuggled in, or groups on foot sneaking through the underbrush, they're not trying to get to a visa office.  We could hand them out for free and they wouldn't get one because they are choosing to bypass any and all legal ways to enter the country.  Closing the gaps to prevent illegal entry forces people to choose the right way.  Only then will we find out if the visa application process is part of the problem.  

[Golden Duck 7,203]

1 hour ago, and then said:

Do you realize that Mexico can quickly reverse this Tariff by attempting to help slow the flow?  Why, on earth, is that a bad thing?  When did every human being on the planet that wants to be in America, gain that right?

I made an observation on the potential trade measures and how the would exacerbate the problem. It's not a comment on sovereignty relating immigration.

GATT was created following the USA promotion of free-trade over protectionism. The USA lead the call for eliminating Most Favoured Nations.  Trade measures aren't remedies for illegal immigration. 

Trump has previously made allusions to calling in NATO markers. Perhaps offering concessions to those assisting in establishing and administering refugee camps; if the illegal immigration problem really is a refugee problem. There must better alternatives 

Is the confidence that Mexico alone can fix the problem really justified?

[OverSword 43,489]

1 hour ago, Big Jim said:

Visas can't be issued to people who don't apply for them.  Neither does it matter if the process is easy or difficult.  When we see people crammed into vans being smuggled in, or groups on foot sneaking through the underbrush, they're not trying to get to a visa office.  We could hand them out for free and they wouldn't get one because they are choosing to bypass any and all legal ways to enter the country.  Closing the gaps to prevent illegal entry forces people to choose the right way.  Only then will we find out if the visa application process is part of the problem.  

Once word got out that the it was easy to go the legal route that paradigm would change. Would you pay a coyote if you could do it free with a card that makes it much easier and safer to do it?

[Tatetopa 10,531]

7 hours ago, and then said:

Any suggestions other than just opening the gates and letting them enter by the millions?

Sure, build the wall or barrier   Improve the checkpoints. Control the border from this side no matter what anyone else does.  Personal or national responsibility, whatever you want to call it.

Crack down on employers hiring illegal immigrants.  Make it hurt for American businesses to break American  laws.

Continue to apprehend and deport illegal immigrants whether they flew in and overstayed a visa or walked across the Rio Grande.

Help Mexico with special forces or whatever it takes to get rid of the drug cartels so they can go after corruption.  Stop the drug traffic on this side of the border.

Stop being so cheap with city and state police so that they can protect us from criminals whether they are immigrants or home grown.

Help the three countries in Central America get rid of gangs so that capitalism can take hold and show its worth.

Get Congress and the President on board with an immigration policy that works for the United States.  Figure out how much labor we need and issue permits.

Straighten out entitlements so that people can stop worrying about how much poor people are allegedly draining our social net.

That is a few to start and probably more than we will do in the next two years or six. 

[Tatetopa 10,531]

7 hours ago, Big Jim said:

Do you notice the contradiction in the bolded parts?  Why should we always be the one to fix others' problems and yet not expect some assistance for ours?

Because sometimes fixing problems at the source is the cheapest way to help ourselves.

[Tatetopa 10,531]

7 hours ago, Big Jim said:

We have allies around the world and we work cooperatively to meet challenges and for mutual defense.  Mexico is supposed to be our ally but they are giving aid and shelter to the invaders of our country.   We're not asking them to defend us, just to cooperate.  It is not up to us to fix other countries.  But, when the money for the wall was being denied by Congress they voted to give twice as much to the Central American countries.  Clearly that didn't fix the problem either.  Like you say, that's what the wall is supposed to do, but Congress doesn't see it that way.  They'd rather waste money on ineffective strategies rather than work with Trump on things that will work.

Mexico is our ally and they have been doing things.  They slowed the caravans and offered those people a home in Mexico.  That is going to cost them too. They cooperate with us on drug and terrorist watch lists.  They are giving aid and shelter to those people to keep them there and prevent them from going further north..    You talk as if they are supplying those people for an invasion.  They are trying to absorb them and keep them from starving in the meantime.  

By the way, were giving those countries less than $500 million total.  That is a third of the minimum offer for the wall.  And what is it with you Republicans?  You had two years to come up with more than that and failed. Lets get it together.

 

[Tatetopa 10,531]

7 hours ago, Big Jim said:

Do you notice the contradiction in the bolded parts?  Why should we always be the one to fix others' problems and yet not expect some assistance for ours?

Sometimes it is cheaper and less disruptive to put a forest fire out before it gets to your house.  It isn't philanthropy it is  money saving common sense.