Reuters: Mexico eyes Brazil for U.S. asylum deal, Trump revives tariff threat
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexico and the United States might consider additional steps next month to restrict illegal immigration from Central America, including measures to bind Brazil and Panama into their efforts, Mexico’s foreign minister said on Monday.
Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said the measures could be needed if a deal announced last week between Washington and Mexico fails to reduce within 45 days the numbers of migrants entering Mexico, mainly from Central America, on their way to the U.S. border.
The deal averted import tariffs on all Mexican goods that President Donald Trump had threatened to impose unless Mexico committed to do more to fight illegal immigration into the United States.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The media narrative is that this U.S. - Mexico deal is nothing new. That it was decided months ago. Maybe so, but when I did a search on the New York Times/Washington Post/and AP news websites, there was no announcement of such a deal in their news archives. Certainly not in the past 6 months. Fake news anyone?
As for the deal itself. I am personally skeptical that Mexico will deliver on their end of the deal. Mexico has always had a policy that promoted the migration of their citizens to the U.S., and I do not see them changing that overnight. Coupled this with states like California now openly offering free health care to illegal migrants, I certainly do not see this migrant flood stopping anytime soon .... California to become the first state to extend health benefits to some who live in USA illegally (USA Today). My prediction. There are too many parties in Latin America and in the U.S. who do not want to see this flow of cheap and exploited labour to stop anytime soon. I can easily see Mexico dropping the enforcement of their southern borders in a few weeks, and an intensive media and political campaign within the U.S. to block any future measures from the White House to stop it.
19 comments:
California can be brought to heel by a man like Trump.
Flooding the CA-Mexican border with US regular troops to do inspections for instance.
No National Guard, use regular troops because the border is under attack.
Yes by all means get the military out and about and realize some return on all that money spent on the war machine.
Mexico just need to give domestic insurgent leftists a lil more time to whittle our national sovereignty down...
There is no power to do anything against asylum seekers, one judge decided that they can do whatever they want, and no number of military or Border Patrol agents can do anything about it.
Editor: you need to sharpen search skills rather than blaming media
Friday’s joint declaration says Mexico agreed to the “deployment of its National Guard throughout Mexico, giving priority to its southern border.” But the Mexican government had already pledged to do that in March during secret talks in Miami between Kirstjen Nielsen, then the secretary of homeland security, and Olga Sanchez, the Mexican secretary of the interior, the officials said.
Fred. You are actually making my point. The quote that you are using is from the New York Times two days ago, and it is anonymous. Which makes me wonder if it is true, especially since there was no/zero/nada New York Times coverage in March of this story when this agreement was apparently made. This is a perfect textbook example of fake news.
So what you are saying is the New York Times has an agenda? I don't believe it:)
We burned our way to Mexico city once. Time to do it again. Why fight halfway around the world and ignore what is essentially a failed state controlled by cartels on our own border? They have openly defied and undermined us for decades, funneling drugs and illegal immigrants who stagnate wages and inflate housing costs, to the detriment of the majority of our honest citizens.
Prove it Fred!! It's made up news!!
Provide the story or stop pressing the point.
Great stuff! This is Management 101 and I deal with this in the industrial world everyday. We need to make decisions that provide momentum and improvement for all and that's what we see here. Wow - MAGA.
Yes Anon burn your way to Mexico City and take on running that country as if the US government had any ability anymore to actually run a country other than into the ground.
All the Mexican President needs to do is add an export tax (otherwise known as a tariff) on all the food stuff going to the US and then maybe when the Americans are paying $10 for tomato, or, whatever else they want from Mexico in the food line, perhaps they will learn that tariffs on imported stuff actually enriche the government as in quasi taxation paid for by their own people. If Mexico added a tariff it would times two or so.
Trump talks tough and Americans pay the price with nothing to gain.
Mexico had 3 breakaway provinces, Texas and two others. Texas was a loss and the other two provinces were a win. Mexico fought 3 wars.
Then it fought a 4th one in 1848 and lost.
Let Mexico hike the cost of its agricultural produce. You will see more production and more gardens in the US the following year.
Huntley thinks gardening is placing an order at the kiosk at McDonalds.
Bob you're a moron. We export more food to Mexico than vice versa. Their top export to us is cars(not counting people and drugs). Would it be such a bad thing if we moved more automobile manufacturing jobs back to the states?
Editor
1. newspapers often use anon sources...a decent paper does this often
You accept an article with a name not given in story by WSJ, above, on some topic. That paper did not give a name but suggested a source said etc.
2. the deal,we are told by a Mexican govt person in the story, said the arrangement was made in secret. That is why at that time the story not picked up by the papers till now.
3. Now if you want to dismiss stories by so many papers as fake, then do not cite those papers when there is a story that appeals to you and dismiss the stories when you dislike what is said.
4. if I have to choose between the NYTimes, WSJ, and Reteurs and Donald Trump I will go with the papers
anon: yes if you want to pay more for cars it would be bad, though you would not mind, right?
Mexico denies Trump’s claim of secret concessions in deal
And there lies your problem fred (#4), you'd rather believe information not supported or relying on anon sources than hard straightforward evidence.
Mike
Newspapers often lie or simply omit truth but the US government has a history of telling lies, lies that end up killing people, and you would put your faith in Trump the Liar in Chief?
Anon
You are wrong.
Bob huh? Every one lies thats a fact. Your acting like any presidents before him have not. You and fred make a super couple get a room.
Anon
Your post bears no relevance to what I said.
Post a Comment