Tariffs, Tarrifs, Tarrifs!

[Seabass]

Trump is destroying three decades of hard work with Mexico

Whatever the ultimate outcome of President Trump’s conflict with Mexico, one consequence is already clear. He has undermined one of the most impressive U.S. foreign policy achievements of the past three decades. Mexico used to be a reflexively anti-American country, radical and resentful toward its powerful neighbor to the north. But starting in the 1990s, through the careful efforts of leaders on both sides of the border, that changed. Until Trump came along.

For much of its modern history, Mexico almost defined itself in opposition to the United States. It saw itself as a developing country that was oppressed by its high-handed, imperialist neighbor. And this image did have some basis in reality. From the Mexican perspective, the United States’ relations with it were characterized by exploitation and annexation. After a failed attempt to purchase what is now California, Arizona, New Mexico and other Western states, President James K. Polk invaded Mexico and essentially seized this territory. In 1853, the United States acquired even more Mexican land in the Gadsden Purchase. In total, the United States got roughly half of Mexico’s land.

After that, and well into the 20th century, Washington’s approach toward Mexico was usually aimed at protecting the interests of large U.S. corporations, especially its oil companies that had tried to operate in Mexico with minimal interference from local authorities. All this bred a political climate of defiance and resistance toward Washington that made cross-border cooperation difficult on almost any issue. As Shannon K. O’Neil observes, Mexico was one of the few countries that rejected U.S. assistance through John F. Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress program.

Things turned in the 1990s. The Cold War ended, and the idea of a socialist country became less threatening to the United States. Mexico went through a series of economic crises in the 1980s and 1990s and desperately needed help. It began opening up its economy and political system. U.S. firms were doing more business in Mexico and wanted a stable trading partner. Washington began to recognize that the best solution to all of the problems across the border — immigration, drugs, violence — was a prosperous, democratic Mexico.

Relations between Mexico and the United States soon transformed. The old anti-Americanism faded into oblivion. The two countries stepped up cooperation on almost all relevant issues, signing the North American Free Trade Agreement and working together on everything from water management to immigration to drugs. Consider that the Mexican government allowed the United States to take custody of its most wanted criminal, Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, and try him in a court in Brooklyn. Despite all the scorn that Trump has heaped on Mexico, its most radical and left-wing president in a generation, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has responded like a grown-up, saying, “The Mexican government is a friend of the U.S. government.”

AMLO, as the Mexican president is known, is himself Mexico’s response to Trump. It is difficult to tie his election entirely to Trump’s anti-Mexican rhetoric, but note that López Obrador’s party won only 8.4 percent of the vote in 2015 and that he was polling at around just 25 percent in 2016 after Trump became the Republican presidential nominee. As Trump’s Mexico-bashing persisted into his own presidency, López Obrador labeled him a “neofascist” and even published a book titled “Listen, Trump.” Last July, López Obrador won a staggering 53 percent of the presidential vote and his party won 37.5 percent of the legislative vote, double the showing of the next-highest-performing party. Mexico now has a radical socialist at its helm in no small measure thanks to the nasty and derisive rhetoric of Trump.

But even López Obrador recognizes that, as Mexico’s president, he has to make nice with Washington. The relationship is lopsided, as it has always been. But the country feels freshly humiliated, and the reformers are in retreat. As a former senior Mexican diplomat, Jorge Guajardo, wrote in Politico, “All our old suspicions are confirmed: The United States is not a friend. The United States is out to get us, again. We’re back to where we were before NAFTA.”

more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

[Tero]

Foxnews:
But, Trump suggested Sunday, the threat of tariffs is not completely removed.

"Importantly, some things not mentioned in [yesterday's] press release, one in particular, were agreed upon," Trump continued. "That will be announced at the appropriate time. There is now going to be great cooperation between Mexico & the USA, something that didn’t exist for decades. However, if for some unknown reason there is not, we can always go back to our previous, very profitable, position of Tariffs - But I don’t believe that will be necessary. The Failing @nytimes, & ratings challenged @CNN, will do anything possible to see our Country fail! They are truly The Enemy of the People!"

Democrats seeking to unseat President Trump in 2020, meanwhile, said the Times report was evidence that the administration merely was trying to save face, after Trump suddenly announced his plan for the tariffs less than two weeks ago, on May 30.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... eakthrough

[laklak]

Is anyone going to take a shot at the question? Why shouldn't the U.S. secure it's borders like every other country does?

Because it’s the wrong question. You already have secure borders both north and south. The question is, how secure is secure? And what does secure actually mean? The GOP can’t really answer that in any way besides saying “Rapists and Murderers.” They stopped saying “Cuz they’re taking our jobs” because it became plain to even Repubs that that was a lie.

"Secure", to me, anyway, means you don't have to arrest 133,000 people a month. If you DO have to arrest that many, you certainly don't bring them into your country, give them an order to appear, and then turn them loose. It means that if you want to emmigrate to the U.S. you do it legally, like the over 1,000,000 who do so every year.

What does it mean to you?

[laklak]

Just heard a joke.

If an illegal immigrant gets in a fight with a sex offender, is that Alien vs Predator?

[Tero]

shit happens, laklak. Climate change, Syria. Eventually a whole bunch of people from the South, tens of millions, will move North. 5 million Syrians are outside Syria.

[laklak]

Nuclear Winter. Sorts out all sort of problems.

[Cunt]

laklak, the progressives want open borders, and the opener the better.

Maybe it has something to do with the way federal funds are allocated. If there are two districts, each with 100,000 people, the difference could be this way...

District 1 - mostly illegal aliens, with 1% voting citizens.

District 2 - mostly citizens, with 99% voting citizens.

In district 1, most of the bodies bring government money in (there are that many bodies there, using roads, schools etc.) and a very small, elite group gets to vote for all of them. (VERY Democratic, but not all that democratic)

In district 2, the same amount of government money comes in (same number of bodies using roads, schools etc.) and the votes are spread out among most of the people affected.

I don't understand why anyone opposes ejecting illegal immigrants. It's almost like they hate the lawful immigrants so much, they want to ruin their chances for everything.

[rainbow]

I don't understand why anyone opposes ejecting illegal immigrants. It's almost like they hate the lawful immigrants so much, they want to ruin their chances for everything.

[Cunt]

I don't understand why anyone opposes ejecting illegal immigrants. It's almost like they hate the lawful immigrants so much, they want to ruin their chances for everything.

Doesn't mean anything to me. Are you ok with letting some people 'jump the line', just because they snuck across a border?

[rainbow]

I don't understand why anyone opposes ejecting illegal immigrants. It's almost like they hate the lawful immigrants so much, they want to ruin their chances for everything.

Doesn't mean anything to me.

It doesn't mean anything to anyone. Gibberish that you wrote.

Are you ok with letting some people 'jump the line', just because they snuck across a border?

No.
Who said this?
Where?
When?

[Sean Hayden]

I'm not mad. I'm attending a naturalization ceremony in a few weeks, and it's not my first. I don't think the guy taking the oath has any business being upset with people entering illegally.

It doesn't make sense.

Would he prefer to enter illegally? Hasn't he had a tremendous amount of help and luck?

[Tero]

Go to the Swiss system: guest workers. You nnever have to give them citizenship. Or to their kids.

[rainbow]

Go to the Swiss system: guest workers. You nnever have to give them citizenship. Or to their kids.

...unless they have oodles and oodles of boodle, and the Canton Council finds they are of the correct sort.

[Woodbutcher]

I'm a legal immigrant.Tero is a legal immigrant. It's kind of sad that these illegal immigrants to US come from countries where the US Secret Service has undermined the electoral process to select leaders who are pro-US and willing to give trade concessions. Since similar process happened in the American election, Canada is expecting to receive millions of refugees and illegals from US in the near future. Mostly academics, people with IQs above 90, and non-religious people. We have room. Non-evangelicals preferred. Bring fly dope.

[Tero]

But all that sow shoveling! I'd have to live in a condo in Canada!