Connect with us

Politics

Trump to Impose Tariffs on All Mexican Goods Over Immigration

Published

on

  • President Donald Trump announced Thursday that his administration will impose a five percent tariff on all Mexican imports beginning June 10 in order to curb illegal immigration.
  • The White House later said that the U.S. will increase the tariffs by five percentage points every month after June until they reach 25 percent in October, where it will remain until Mexico reduces the flow of illegal immigrants to the U.S.
  • Several Republican lawmakers condemned the tariffs, arguing that they could undermine the ongoing efforts to ratify the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Trump’s Announcement

President Donald Trump said Thursday that he would impose a five percent tariff on all Mexican goods starting June 10, in an effort to put pressure on Mexico to control illegal immigration.

In a tweet, Trump wrote that the tariffs will continue “until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP.”

“The Tariff will gradually increase until the Illegal Immigration problem is remedied,” he continued.

A statement later issued from the White House said the tariffs would rise by five percent every month after June, until they hit 25 percent on Oct. 1.

“Tariffs will permanently remain at the 25 percent level unless and until Mexico substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory,” the statement said.

The White House statement did not specifically outline how Mexico can meet Trump’s demands. “If the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico, to be determined in our sole discretion and judgment, the Tariffs will be removed,” it said.

In a press briefing, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said that there was not a specific target that Mexico was expected to meet. He also stated that the White House would address Mexico’s actions “on a day-to-day, week-to-week basis.”

“We are going to judge success here by the number of people crossing the border,” Mulvaney said. “That number needs to start coming down immediately in a significant and substantial number.”

Mexico’s Response

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador responded to the announcement in a letter to Trump on Thursday.

In the letter, which was later made public, López Obrador said that he did not want a “confrontation,” and emphasized the need for dialogue. “Social problems are not resolved with taxes or coercive measures,” López Obrador wrote.

However, at a press conference on Thursday night, Mexico’s deputy foreign minister for North America, Jésus Seade, described Trump’s announcement as “disastrous.”

Seade also indicated that if the Trump administration followed through, Mexico could react in a similar fashion.“If it will happen we must respond energetically,” he said.

The correct thing would be to answer an eye for an eye, five percent on imports.”

Source: @JesusSeade

U.S. Lawmaker’s Response

Many U.S. lawmakers also responded negatively to Trump’s announcement, including several Republicans who warned the president that the tariffs could derail the ongoing negotiations of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which is Trump’s replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) condemned the tariffs in a statement and asked Trump to “reconsider” the move.

“If the president goes through with this, I’m afraid progress to get this trade agreement across the finish line will be stifled,” she said. “While I support the need for comprehensive border security and a permanent fix to illegal immigration, this isn’t the right path forward.”

Ernst echoed an earlier statement from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, which is one of the bodies responsible for overseeing the USMCA.

“Following through on this threat would seriously jeopardize passage of USMCA, a central campaign pledge of President Trump’s and what could be a big victory for the country,” Grassley said in a statement. “I support nearly every one of President Trump’s immigration policies, but this is not one of them.”

Trump’s announcement comes at as efforts to negotiate the USMCA were advanced this week.  In a letter sent earlier on Thursday, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer urged congressional leaders to start the treaty ratification process.

The same day, López Obrador officially asked Mexico’s Senate to ratify the deal as well, and Vice President Mike Pence was in the Canadian capital in order to promote the agreement.

Trump also recently agreed to lift tariffs on steel and aluminum that the U.S. had put on imports from Canada and Mexico as part of an effort to speed up negotiations. Canada and Mexico responded by lifting tariffs on U.S. products.

Now, experts and lawmakers worry the new wave of tariffs may send a contradictory message.

Trump Administration Defends Tariffs

Members of the Trump Administration defended the tariffs and argued that they were necessary to curb illegal immigration.

“Mexico has the ability to step up and do more,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said on Fox News Friday. “The president has been asking them for months to do that, and now he is putting some measures in place that hopefully will get them to engage more so that they will start to help us in this process.”

Other administration officials have framed Trump’s tariffs as an issue of national security, rather than trade.

“These are not tariffs as part of a trade dispute. These are tariffs as part of an immigration problem,” Mulvaney said in a briefing when asked whether or not the tariffs would undermine USMCA negotiations. “The American taxpayer is paying for what’s going on at the border.”

This sentiment was also explicitly addressed in the White House’s statement on the tariffs.

“Mexico’s passive cooperation in allowing this mass incursion constitutes an emergency and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States,” the statement said. It went on to say that Trump would address the “emergency” by invoking “authorities granted” to him under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Other Concerns

Others have pushed back against this. Usually, it is the authority of Congress, and not the president, to raise taxes and tariffs. However, the president can gain the power to raise tariffs by declaring that certain circumstances amount to threats to national security.

To this point, Grassley criticized Trump’s efforts as a “misuse of presidential tariff authority,” that is “counter to congressional intent.”

“Trade policy and border security are separate issues,” Grassley added.

Others still have expressed concerns about the economic impacts of the new tariffs. While Trump claims the tariffs are a punishment for Mexico, many economists argue that the costs will largely be the burden of U.S. businesses and consumers.

This is because tariffs are paid by companies that import products and when U.S. businesses are required to pay the import penalties, that extra cost is often passed along to consumers.

According to the U.S. trade representative’s office, the U.S. imported an estimated total of $346.5 billion of Mexican goods last year, making Mexico the second-largest supplier of goods to the U.S. in 2018.

See what others are saying: (NBC News) (The Washington Post) (Fox News)

Politics

Republicans Say They Will Block Bill To Avert Government Shutdown and Debt Default

Published

on

Democrats argue the bill is necessary to prevent an economic catastrophe.


Democrats Introduce Legislation

Democrats in the House and Senate unveiled sweeping legislation Monday that aimed to keep the government funded through early December, lift the federal debt limit, and provide around $35 billion for Afghan refugees and natural disaster recovery.

The bill is needed to avoid a government shutdown when funding expires next week. It is also necessary to prevent the Treasury Department from reaching the limit of its borrowing authority, which would trigger the U.S. to default on its debt for the first time ever.

For weeks, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has urged Congress to raise the federal debt limit, also known as the debt ceiling, warning that the department will soon exhaust all of its measures to keep the federal government within its legal borrowing limit.

If the U.S. were to default, it would be unable to pay its debts, sending massive shockwaves through the financial system.

Democrats have painted the bill as crucial to avert an economic doomsday that would massively undermine recovery.

They argue that the combination of a government shutdown and a debt default would destabilize global markets and leave millions of Americans without essential aid.

Republicans Vow to Oppose Raising Debt Ceiling 

Despite the considerable threats, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has repeatedly said Republicans will not vote to increase the debt ceiling, arguing that Democrats should do it without their help because they are pushing trillions of dollars in new spending priorities.

Democrats have slammed the Republican leader’s stance as hypocritical. They point out that while it is true they are proposing new spending, it has not been approved yet, and the debt that currently risks default has been incurred by both parties.

Democrats also noted that trillions of dollars were added to the federal debt under former President Donald Trump, which is more than what has been added by President Joe Biden. As a result, Republicans raised the debt ceiling three times during the Trump administration with the support of Democrats.

McConnell, however, remains unlikely to budge. On Monday, White House officials said McConnell has not outlined any requests or areas of negotiation in exchange for support of the legislation. 

While the bill is expected to pass the House, it appears all but doomed in the Senate, where it needs 60 votes to break the filibuster.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (Politico)

Continue Reading

Politics

California Gov. Gavin Newsom Survives Recall

Published

on

Experts say the outcome should act as a warning for Republicans who tie themselves to former President Donald Trump and attempt to undermine election results by promoting false voter fraud claims.


Recall Effort Fails

After seven months and an estimated $276 million in taxpayer money, the Republican-led effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) failed Tuesday.

Just under 70% of the votes have been reported as of Wednesday morning, showing that “no” on the recall received 63.9% of the vote. That’s nearly twice as many votes as “yes,” which had 36.1%.

According to The Washington Post, even if the margin narrows as more votes are counted, this still marks one of the biggest rejections of any recall effort in America over the last century.

Analysts say the historic rebuke was driven by high Democratic turnout and broader fears over resurging COVID cases.

While the Delta variant continues to push new infections to record highs in many parts of the country with lax mask rules and low vaccination rates, California, once a global epicenter of the pandemic, now has one of the highest vaccination rates and lowest new caseloads in the nation.

Newsom has continually tried to convince voters that those figures are the results of his vaccine and masking policies, which have been some of the most aggressive in the U.S. 

Given that polls showed the pandemic was the top concern for California voters, it is clear that the majority favored his policies over those of his competitors. Larry Elder, the Republican talk radio host of led the field of 46 challengers, ran on a platform of getting rid of essentially all COVID restrictions.

Newsom’s Remarks

In his victory speech Tuesday night, Newsom painted the recall’s failure not only as a win for Democratic coronavirus policies but also for Democracy at large.

“We said yes to science. We said yes to vaccines. We said yes to ending this pandemic,” he said. “We said yes to people’s right to vote without fear of fake fraud or voter suppression.” 

“I think about just in the last few days and the former president put out saying this election was rigged,” he continued. “Democracy is not a football. You don’t throw it around. That’s more like a, I don’t know, antique vase. You can drop it and smashing a million different pieces. And that’s what we’re capable of doing if we don’t stand up to meet the moment and push back.”

“I said this many, many times on the campaign trail, we may have defeated Trump, but Trump-ism is not dead in this country. The Big Lie, January 6th insurrection, all the voting suppression efforts that are happening all across this country.” 

A Warning for Republicans

Newsom’s remarks took aim at the efforts by Elder and other Republicans — including former President Donald Trump — who over the last week have claimed falsely and without evidence that voter fraud helped secured the governor’s win before Election Day even took place.

While it is currently unknown whether that narrative may have prompted more Republican voters to stay home, Newsom’s effort to cast Edler as a Trump-like candidate and the recall as an undemocratic, Republican power grab appears to have been effective.

Now, political strategists say that the outcome of the recall should serve as a warning that Republicans who pin themselves to Trump and his Big Lie playbook may be hurt more in certain states.

“The recall does offer at least one lesson to Democrats in Washington ahead of next year’s midterm elections: The party’s pre-existing blue- and purple-state strategy of portraying Republicans as Trump-loving extremists can still prove effective with the former president out of office,” The New York Times explained.

Even outside of a strongly blue state like California, analysts say this strategy will also be effective with similar candidates in battleground states like Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, which will be essential to deciding control of the Senate.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (NPR)

Continue Reading

Politics

Justice Department Sues Texas Over Abortion Ban

Published

on

The department claims the Texas law violates past Supreme Court precedents on abortion and infringes on Constitutional protections.


Biden Administration Takes Aim at Texas Law

The Department of Justice sued Texas on Thursday in an attempt to block the state’s newly enacted law that effectively prohibits all abortions by banning the procedure after six weeks, before most people know they are pregnant.

The abortion law, which is the most restrictive in the country and does not provide exceptions for rape or incest, allows private citizens to take legal action against anyone who helps a person terminate their pregnancy after six weeks.

In its lawsuit, the Justice Department argued that the Texas law is unconstitutional because it violates past Supreme Court precedents through a technical loophole.

While numerous other states have passed similar laws banning abortion after about six weeks, federal judges have struck down those measures on the grounds that they are inconsistent with Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that states cannot prevent someone from seeking an abortion before a fetus can viably live outside the womb, usually around 22 to 24 weeks.

The Texas law, however, skirts the high court decisions by deputizing citizens to enforce the law rather than state government officials, taking the state out of the equation entirely and protecting it from legal responsibility.

Individuals who do so do not have to prove any personal injury or connection to those they take legal action against, which can range from abortion providers to rideshare drivers who take someone to a clinic.

If their lawsuit is successful, the citizen is entitled to a $10,000 award.

DOJ Lawsuit Targets Constitutionality

During a press conference detailing the DOJ lawsuit, Attorney General Merrick Garland referred to the enforcement mechanism as “an unprecedented” effort with the “obvious and expressly acknowledged intention” to prevent Texans from their constitutionally protected right to have an abortion.

“This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans — whatever their politics or party — should fear,” Garland said, adding that the provision of the law allowing civilians “to serve as bounty hunters” may become “a model for action in other areas, by other states, and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents.”

The Justice Department argued that the Texas policy violates equal protection guarantees under the 14th Amendment as well as the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which establishes that the Constitution and federal law generally take precedence over state law.

The lawsuit also claimed that the law interferes with the constitutional obligation of federal employees to provide access to abortion, including in cases of rape or incest, to people who are under the care of federal agencies or contractors such as those in prisons.

Both Sides See Path to Supreme Court

While proponents of abortion rights applauded the Justice Department’s legal challenge, officials in Texas defended the law and accused the Biden administration of filing the lawsuit for political reasons. 

“President Biden and his administration are more interested in changing the national narrative from their disastrous Afghanistan evacuation and reckless open border policies instead of protecting the innocent unborn,” a spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), said in a statement. 

“We are confident that the courts will uphold and protect that right to life.”

The DOJ’s suit will now be decided by a federal judge for the Western District of Texas, based in Austin. 

Depending on how that court rules, either opponents or supporters of the abortion ban are expected to appeal the case, sending it to the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal and likely ultimately placing the matter before the Supreme Court again in a matter of months.

The Supreme Court allowed the law to go into effect by declining to approve an emergency petition to block the measure last week, but it did not rule on the constitutionality of the policy.

As a result, the Justice Department’s legal challenge could force the high court to hear another facet of the law that it has not yet considered if it decides to see the case.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (The Texas Tribune)

Continue Reading