Threatening tarrifs on Mexico and Canada made Mexico head and dancing head of Canada already agree to Trump demands.Amazing when you replace a candy ass President with one who other countries fear what those countries will agree to.Biden legacy about to take first of a lot of big hits.
Trump Laying Down The Law On Border
- Thread starter Rockaway
- Start date
Not sure what demands you believe Trudeau agreed to?
The use of tariffs is good to encourage people buying American products instead of foreign products.
If Canada started dumping cheap products into the US and it was hurting manufacturing here, then a tariff makes sense to increase the price of Canadian products so the US could complete. That's not what is happening here though. Tariffs on goods from Canada would just raise the price of those goods to the consumer. The biggest thing we import from Canada is oil.
We wouldn't stop importing oil from Canada. It would just be more expensive to import it and consumers ultimately will pay those costs.
Biden failed on the boarder so I'll give Trump credit when he deserves it on immigration, but the cheerleading for tariffs is odd.
Tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports do not make sense.
I'm most curious to see how Trump handles the border crisis.
- The security piece - Combination of barriers, agents, technology and support from Mexico.
- Deportation strategy - There is a wide gap between what Homan is saying and what the MSM is crying about (MASS deportations and deporting your abuella...). Also how he manages the jackass mayors and governors that are already resisting.
- Using tariffs as a stick - Mexico is so economically dependent on the U.S., so he has some leverage. It's funny that Trudeau is already freaking out because they expect illegals to head north to Canada.
- Path to citizenship - If Trump wanted to create a legacy, he can use this moment to create ways for the law abiding illegals that have been working here for years to obtain citizenship. It's a stretch, but if there is a time to get support this would be it.
That 2-year old girl that was all alone on the news last night was heartbreaking. The immigration mess sums up the Biden administration: Undo what Trump did and then follow up with inaction. Pathetic.
Mexico put 6,000 troops on the border and enforced remain in Mexico so I expect something similar this time that is what I was referring to.Trudeau is dancing weak guy who will do what Trump demands.If far left mayors resist criminal deportation then they have higher chance of being defeated next time.Hard to believe Biden and the left believed the country wanted open borders and billions to feed and provide hotel rooms for migrants.Vermont might elect socialists who actually believe that is a great economic system Bernie might want to explain how Argentina when from 9th in per capital GDP in 1900 to 49th in 2000 do cry for me Argentina
I expect it to look a lot like the Lankford bill.
Agreed, the mayors and governors resisting are morons. Just say you will work with the Trump administration to assist in deporting those who are a danger and will encourage a path to citizenship otherwise.
I think the tariff talk is more political spin than anything else.
Placing a tariff on Mexican imports would hurt us more than help us. Trump using the "threat" is because eventually there will be some kind of border deal between the two and he can use the "threat" as the reason why it got done.
Agreed. That would be a legacy builder for him.
Left seems to be forgetting Obama deported over 5 million Trump over 1 million maybe they feel Obama was a racist on this issue.
well they certainly don't give him credit for the same issue? how many pro border people would want obama back.
and again with the tarriffs?
So Homan should pass 100-0 in the Senate since he was the head of ICE under Obama. Why would a Dem Senator oppose him?
Wrong border. Mexico agreed to send 6k troops to the border of Mexico and Guatemala.
there’s a humanitarian piece of this to which he seems fairly cold so far and will certainly have some opposing him because of that.
Not a bad pick though. He will get through the senate.
He’s been pretty clear that they are prioritizing criminals and terror watchlist subjects. I think most Americans prefer his direct approach. Funny how the MSM can turn on someone though.
The humanitarian piece is overblown. Adults making bad choices get separated from their families quite often. Those people who broke the law have about 50 days to get out with their children to avoid separation and come back in legally. If you don’t want to be separated from your child you have a chance to do the right thing now.
Tariffs represent a dangerous game that will be hard to get right as the media is going to jump all over price increases without giving air time to any positives coming from them. I don't quite get the Canada tariff threat, but the oil point is a non-issue given I expect us to become a net exporter of oil again under Trump. I do understand Mexico more although there is a fair amount of Mexico manufacturing that then becomes American assembly jobs so he'll have to be careful there.
Family separation is part of it, as would be exporting people who have been here for years if not decades with nothing to return to.
Not sure how far we'll go with it, so I'm really giving an opinion on what we might do. I'll wait to see what we actually do.
It's a shame that people don't realize that US oil production is the highest it has ever been, and we've been exporting far more than we import.
Because there isn't much positive news associated with tariffs unless we are doing it to prevent a country from sending cheap goods which will disrupt an industry in the US.
If Canada found a gigantic supply of easily obtainable oil and started dumping really cheap oil in the US, the US oil companies could not compete. It would then make more sense for US refining companies to only buy the cheap Canadian oil, so the US would have to place a tariff on Canadian imports so the US oil companies could compete again. That would make sense.
Tariffs for any other reason do not make any sense.
Like anything, the devil will be in the details. I believe automobiles are Mexico‘s number one export with a US being its largest destination. If you use that example, if the prices on those automobiles rises, consumers may choose other brands and options. Like I think there’s a large EV manufacturer that produces all of its vehicles in the US.
My point is no matter how you slice it, we're only breaking up families who broke the law coming in here. We don't give a pass to American adults who break laws, why should we give a pass to non citizens who broke the law crossing the border illegally. I'd like to see us start with those who broke other laws, but eventually people have to come here the right way.
Yes, people do need to come in the right way.
That doesn’t mean we have to kick those who have been here for many years out.
I don’t think we need to grant automatic citizenship to everyone here, but a path of they have been here with no criminal offenses for a certain number of years and have shown they are able to be productive members of society.
Do you honestly believe that if someone has been here for 10-20 years, has been working, had kids etc should be kicked out?
Again, I don’t know what we will actually do. I just hope we approach the issue seriously to make the border more secure, we deport those who committed criminal offense, and we show humanity towards those who are here with nothing to go back to.
Last edited:
The question is do we go after people who committed crimes a decade ago or not. I'm not really sure why breaking in the country a decade ago is any different than finding the guy who broke into your home a decade ago. I'm sure in the first instance they're not people with bad intentions, but you have to think they haven't taken things away from Americans and added to the spending.
Great example actually. We have a statute of limitations in NJ on breaking and entering of 5 years... so no, we would not go after a guy who broke into your house 10 years ago. We have a 1 year statute of limitations for misdemeanors, which is what crossing the border illegally is.
My view is that we can, and should do the same for illegal immigrants. A path going forward where if they are here today, they can get citizenship after a certain number of years if they meet certain criteria - working, no crime etc.
They haven't taken anything away from Americans. We exploit them for the cheap labor and every economic study on this shows they have been a net benefit to our economy overall.
Exactly right, best thing Trump can do is remove the criminals and create a path to citizenship for those living and working in USA for more than one year. It is the right thing to do plus would flip the tables politically to Republican side. Absolutely crazy to think we would remove everyone, it would cripple the economy. Give 15 million people citizenship and Dems can kiss the next few elections good bye.
That could be his legacy. The issue will be that people here illegally will have to self report. It sounds easy but will most trust the system?
I’m all for some kind of consistency. Whatever it is spread it across the board.
Can’t say that they haven’t take anything away. Resources have been used on them, saturated the housing market, literally not paying taxes and you can come up with your own examples I’m sure. That and having a net benefit are two different things.
They do pay taxes
Study: Undocumented Immigrants Contribute Nearly $100 Billion in Taxes a Year
Contact: Jon Whiten (jon@itep.org) Immigration policies have taken center stage in public debates this year, but much of the conversation…
itep.org
Also have contributed billions to social security which they cannot access.
The “resources have been used on them” is a straw man. Those resources would either go to them or not. They are not taking anything away from anyone.
This is just silly. If the resources weren't paid to them the government would have less of a deficit or they'd be able to give out more to actual Americans.
Some do. Some do not. Many of them are working for cash. Let's just not go there.
Any thoughts on their impact on the housing market?
That’s just not true.
There is not a single program that did not pass because we spent anything on immigrants. If our deficit was 1 trillion vs 900 billion, zero people would notice.
Why not? Youn went there. They do pay taxes, some do, some don’t, just like Americans.
Yes, but my assumption is that you’re referring to the influx of asylum seekers in a few specific areas of the country but those people are here legally and not illegally which is what we’re talking about.
The point is that yes, we spend money on immigrants, but had we not spent that money, it would not be up for grabs.
Cities and states complain because they have to pay for the federal government admitting the immigrants but not offering to help enough.
Unfortunately that number should matter whether people notice or not.
They put down married with 9 dependents on their W4 if they’re on payroll. So yes they’re paying social security tax but barely any income tax. And the obviously no payroll taxes by the employer and none by the employee for those off the books.
no im talking everywhere. How About the millions who’ve come here illegally. They’re not all on the streets and they’re all not paid for up in fancy hotels. Let’s say Homan shipped them all out today. Demand for housing would go down, rents would go down, prices of homes would go down if people had options of cheaper rents. That may not benefit you or me but it will benefit the young adults straddled with debt
Last edited:
Not saying it doesn’t matter, but it has zero impact on any benefit anyone receives like you were saying that money would be used for Americans. It wouldn’t.
I just gave you a link which showed the federal tax revenue paid by illegal immigrants.
The argument used to be that illegal immigrants were bad because they will destroy the real estate market in an area. Now it’s just fearmongering for the opposite end.
The problem isn’t immigrants, hedge funds and private equity have been buying up properties where young people actually want to live and have been driving the price increases. But we point at the poor immigrants as the problem?
And those that work at mar a lago and bedminster too?
The issue transcends migrants being here illegally and their impact on the economy.
The human trafficking, especially with children; and drug trafficking are infinitely worse. The estimate of 300,000 unaccompanied children should make us furious.
The human trafficking, especially with children; and drug trafficking are infinitely worse. The estimate of 300,000 unaccompanied children should make us furious.
Recall the MSM talking point during Trumps first term was “ripping children from their mothers arms.” I guess that’s worse than “selling children for sex”. smh
The 300k number has been popping up again recently on twitter as well, and it is misleading. 10% of them failed to appear for a court hearing, 90% have not been sent a notice to appear. Some are running with the idea that these kids are all “missing” which is not true.
They were released from custody to a sponsor in the US. The sponsor has to pass a background check and is responsible for the minor. That doesn’t mean there is zero risk for these kids, but the narrative seems a bit overblown. The alternative to releasing them to a sponsor is holding them in custody or sending them back to their home country. In a humanitarian sense, does that result in more or less risk to the kid than releasing to a vetted US sponsor?
If they have been sent a notice, wouldn’t it make sense that we don’t know where they are?
I’m a little suspicious about the sponsors and the degree of a background check and how accurate it is. I don’t think the term “overblown” applies here. What about the kids that were smuggled across and never even went through the system.
There is an incentive with an open border to traffic children, women and drugs. If you reduce or eliminate the opportunity the cartels will have to curtail their efforts.
So what you are saying is that Obama was five times tougher on illegals than Trump? Trump better get a backbone.
This is silly. First Trump was in office for 4 years and and Obama was in for 8 so that would make it 2.5 times. But common sense would say the toughest guy deports none because the border is so secure they can’t get in. You have to factor in the number of illegals here vs number deported if you want to be fair. If you don’t want to be fair then you can pick and choose the numbers you want and run with them.
Last edited:
