Winning: The Supreme Court finally ends the wall of irrationality over the border
The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling that President Trump can indeed build the wall from already appropriated funding is a sweet one. Here's the Washington Post'sreport:
A split Supreme Court said Friday night that the Trump administration could proceed with its plan to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds to build part of the president’s wall project along the southern border.The court’s conservatives set aside a lower-court ruling for the Sierra Club and a coalition of border communities that said reallocating Defense Department money would violate federal law.Friday’s unsigned ruling came in response to an emergency filing from the administration during the court’s summer recess. The majority said the government “made a sufficient showing at this stage” that private groups may not be the proper plaintiffs to challenge the transfer of money.
At long last, one gets the sense the world is back on its axis. Suddenly, the Sierra Club's 'enjoyment' of natural scenery is not quite as important as Americans' right to hold off a million-strong illegal foreign invasion. At long last, we learn there are some kind of limits to the demands of the open borders lobby which up until now have seen continuous expansion; some kind of check-and-balance between justice for the citizens and the 'rights' of illegal foreigners. There's some kind of acknowledgment that if you don't have borders of any kind, you don't have a country. And there's some kind of sense that the president we elected, precisely to protect us, has some kind of power to do that. Up until now, the constant series of court rulings, by unelected leftists, has left one with the sense that the entire power structure of the country was hinged on what these leftists think.
There's some kind of balance now, some kind of limit... and for that, the ruling was an immense relief.
Combined with the decent compromise accord reached with Guatemala, reducing the incentives of migrants to file phony asylum claims in order to get a few good years working here, and preserving the asylum system for those who truly need it, it's a great victory. One cannot help but feel a sense of celebration.
Because the whole thing has been blown so out of proportion to what it is, by the press, the open borders lobby, and the Democrats.
The ruling itself wasn't that extraordinary. A president has some discretion about how certain already-congressionally appropriated monies can be spent.
A wall is not that extraordinary, either. In the face of a border surge, a wall is reasonable, if for nothing else to free up the Border Patrol from babysitting illegal migrants so that they can go after real drug dealers, who've been having afield day as a result. Dozens of countries have them. It's a simple, uncompromising proxy for rule of law that favors no special interest groups.
And a president has a duty to defend the country. Any country faced with more than a million foreign invaders, all unvetted, and with plenty of criminal, terrorist and deadly disease elements among them - has an obligation to protect its people. Using defense dolars to do it, instead of fight some country in the Middle East, makes perfect sense. This isn't rocket science. The leftist lower courts' continuous rulings in favor of all comers has reached the lunatic point, the point at which one can only see something else going on beyond mere defenses of every individual right at the expense of the whole, some different agenda.
The Democrats, of course, are unhappy, because they've made such a political stink about there never, ever, being a wall to go up. The wall was President Trump's signature issue, the issue that got him unexpectedly elected. Democrats have made a huge deal about the keeping the status quo, keeping the border open, keeping the asylum loopholes in place to encourage illegals to not only abuse the system, but to keep coming, too. That's why they want no wall to ever go up, no matter what the circumstances. Never mind the will of the voters, of course. These Democrats were determined to get their will over his will and in so doing, get him ousted.
Their tweets are revealing for their hypocrisy:
This evening’s Supreme Court ruling allowing @realDonaldTrump to steal military funds to spend on a wasteful, ineffective border wall rejected by Congress is deeply flawed. Our Founders designed a democracy governed by the people — not a monarchy.
39.9K people are talking about this
This evening’s Supreme Court ruling allowing @realDonaldTrump to steal military funds to spend on a wasteful, ineffective border wall rejected by Congress is deeply flawed. Our Founders designed a democracy governed by the people — not a monarchy.
Yea. How dare President Trump spend defense dollars to defend our border rather than that of some country in the Middle East.
771 people are talking about this
Congress did not appropriate these funds for Trump's medieval vanity project. Let's be clear: Trump's wall has never been about keeping the American people safe. twitter.com/washingtonpost…
7,755 people are talking about this
Schumer: It’s a sad day when the president is cheering a decision that may allow him to steal funds from our military to pay for an ineffective and expensive wall for which he promised Mexico would foot the bill. This is a deeply regrettable and nonsensical decision
276 people are talking about this
Since when has Nancy Pelosi ever been concerned about presidential overreach? She let President Obama walk all over her on that one. Or stealing funds - which by the way, are not being stolen? Or kingly power in the post-Obama era, the world she built? Or the biggest of all - government waste? Why would a piddly $8 billion loss due to 'waste' bother her, given the gargantuan losses she's signed off on in Obama's assorted green and welfare schemes? And if a wall is ineffective, why is she upset about it? We all know she wants the illegal migrants to flood in. Her hypocrisy is amazing.
Then there's Kamala Harris, who calls it a medieval vanity project. Really? Why are so many nations doing them now, Kamala? Medieval suggests something rather useless and behind the times. But cocaine smugglers know what a wall means and for them it's not a figment of the past. Again, if it's useless, why is she against it? As for vanity, the only vanity we see is her own. Millions of unvetted foreigners are flooding into the country in an unprecedented invasion. Democrats benefit from it, as illegals roll in with impunity, encounter no law enforcement, put down roots, have children, and then vote Democrat. She can call Trump's project as vain as she wants but the voters elected Trump for this very reason. She's effectively calling us and our voting choices vain. The vanity is hers. And the hypocrisy.
There's also Chuck Schumer, crying his crocodile tears about the military and its funding. The military's doing fine on funding, but more important, a wall is national defense, a bulwark on the border, protection of the citizens. All of this is the very thing a military is supposed to be used for. Schumer seems to think Middle Eastern wars are a better use for the military. As if Democrats have ever supported our military. Lay the hypocrisy thick on this one, too.
As for the rest of us, something is finally happening. A wall will go up. The people's will is finally getting some respect. The law is perfectly in place. And leftists are free to un-elect President Trump, get their own operatives in there, and tear it down if they can persuade enough of us.
Let's celebrate in the meantime.
THE GLOBALIST DEMOCRAT PARTY FOR BILLIONAIRES OPEN BORDERS FOR ENDLESS HORDES OF "CHEAP" LABOR
"Chamber of Commerce President and chief executive Tom Donahue told the Washington Post in April that the U.S. needed more legal immigration because the country is “out of people.” The chamber has pushed for legal protection for so-called “Dreamers” and led political resistance to efforts to deport more illegal border crossers."
They want no borders, no allegiance to a nation state, no citizenship classification connected to a single country. TOM TANCREDO
2020 Census Citizenship Controversy Exposes True Open Borders Agenda
As usual, the dustup about the census including a question about citizenship has nothing to do with what the loony left claims as their motivation to exclude it. They say it’s all about being sensitive to the hurt feelings and paranoia of people who are illegally present in the U.S. And, by the way, asking the question it is not a Donald Trump trick to ferret out those folks who are hiding under their blankets, afraid that the next knock on the door will be the jackbooted ICE agents, come to drag them from their beds and put them on boxcars headed for concentration camps.
A brief history lesson here. The Constitution of the United States directs the President to conduct a Census every ten years, and that has been done without controversy since 1790. And with rare exceptions, the question on citizenship has been part of it from the beginning. Yet, its inclusion in the 2020 Census has become controversial. The reasons for the opposition to the citizenship question tell us a lot about the declining health of our American constitutional republic.
The vehement opposition to the 2020 Census question on citizenship is a symptom of a deep divide in the body politic, a chasm that only grows wider and deeper as politicians postpone a decision over the meaning of the Constitution's opening words, "We the People."
There is a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon separating individuals who believe that "We the People" means we the citizens of the United States and those who believe it means, we the global citizens who temporarily inhabit this territory. To one group having an accurate count of both citizens and noncitizens resident in each state is vital to the constitutional purposes of the Census, but to the "global citizen" contingent that count is not only unnecessary, it is slanderous, racist and, well -- undemocratic!
It is important to understand that this debate over the 2020 Census's citizen/noncitizen numbers is not a debate over counting illegal immigrants residing in the United States. This controversy goes deeper than the debate over whether the official U.S. Census estimate of 11.3 million illegal aliens resident in the country is accurate or woefully inaccurate.
The political resistance to the traditional citizenship question as part of the decennial Census derives its passion and intensity from the ideological goal of transforming the nature of political representation in our republic. In that world, an elected representative in any city council, school board, county commission, state legislature, Board of Regents, or the U. .Congress, is duty bound to represent any resident of his or her district with the same passion and integrity whether that resident be a citizen, a Chinese or German foreign student at a local university, a legal resident alien born in Egypt or an illegal alien who swam across the Rio Grande. Should foreign students at the University of Colorado vote in Boulder city elections? Why not, if every "person" is entitled to "equal representation"?
The population count produced by the 2020 Census will be the foundation for Congress' adoption of revised apportionment of the 435 seats in Congress. Does a new apportionment based on new Census numbers mean a count based on all persons, all citizens, or something else? Such questions will be debated in Congress and litigated all the way to the Supreme Court before we know the answers, but the debate must begin with an accurate count in the Census. Will we get one?
When the national debate over illegal immigration and border security was heating up back in 2005 and 2006 in response to amnesty proposals in Congress, I was roundly criticized for suggesting the opposition to amnesty was rooted in opposition to secure borders. I was attacked by some prominent leaders of the Republican Party for saying that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce saw illegal aliens as cheap labor and the Democrat Party saw them as future Democratic voters. I take no pleasure in observing in 2019 that Democratic leaders in Congress are aggressively advocating open borders as a path to a permanent Democratic majority. And there is an even bigger picture that elitist leftists are trying to paint for us all. They want no borders, no allegiance to a nation state, no citizenship classification connected to a single country.
They want a kumbaya world of global citizens that can be governed by people who “know better.” Think I am wrong? Try to find a recent college or high school grad who can tell you what it means to be an American other than by saying it means abiding in a place called America. The members of what I call the Cult of Multiculturalism infect our schools, our media, and pop culture. The philosophy permeates the West -- its repercussions and can be seen playing out all over Europe.
Only a short decade ago, a world-famous Harvard political scientist, Samuel P. Huntington, wrote a landmark book aptly titled Who Are We? America’s National Identity Crisis. He believed that America's unprecedented achievements and unparalleled prosperity had their foundation in our nation's European heritage, a heritage under siege by the formidable forces of multiculturalism. So eliminating the citizenship question in the Census is a just another step down the road to the elitist utopia promised by Marx and Engels.
Eventually we will come to the step when jackbooted government agents really will be pulling people out of their beds and sending them off to “re-education” camps.” After all, some people might resist the America that Barack Obama promised to thoroughly transform.
Former U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), serves as Advisory Board Member for We Build The Wall. He was author of the famous Bush Era book called In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security.
House Democrats, 39 Republicans Pass ‘Temporary’ Amnesty for Venezuelans
25 Jul 20191,586
5:09
House Democrats and 39 Republicans passed a plan to provide asylum in the United States to potentially millions of Venezuelans fleeing their socialist dictator.
In a 272 to 158 House vote on Thursday, every Democrat and 39 Republicans voted to create a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program for Venezuela’s population — allowing nationals who are already in the U.S. to remain and incentivizing more to migrate.
Officials with the Trump administration previously voiced their opposition to the plan in an interview with Breitbart News.
“We would not want to open the floodgates for them,” an official said in March.
The Republicans who voted with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Rep. Ilhan Omar (R-MN) include:
- Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE)
- Rep. Michael Bost (R-IL)
- Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK)
- Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX)
- Rep. John Curtis (R-UT)
- Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
- Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI)
- Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
- Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
- Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI)
- Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH)
- Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA)
- Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
- Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA)
- Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA)
- Rep. French Hill (R-AR)
- Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX)
- Rep. David Joyce (R-OH)
- Rep. John Katko (R-NY)
- Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
- Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)
- Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL)
- Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX)
- Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY)
- Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-WA)
- Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL)
- Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA)
- Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)
- Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)
- Rep. Ross Spano (R-FL)
- Rep. Elise Stefancik (R-NY)
- Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI)
- Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH)
- Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA)
- Rep. Michael Waltz (R-FL)
- Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR)
- Rep. Rod Woodall (R-GA)
- Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL)
- Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
Leading the opposition against giving TPS to Venezuela’s population, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) called the plan an effort to continue current U.S. national immigration policy that acts as “the world’s orphanage for children and adults alike.”
Brooks said:
This bill proposes a tsunami of people coming to our country who are ill-equipped to support themselves. And, let’s put that into the perspective of where we are a nation. We just blew through the $22 trillion debt mark earlier this year. This year, we are looking at a roughly $900 billion deficit. A deal that has been reached that will only increase our deficit by $2 trillion over the next two years pushing our debt up to $22 trillion. This is money we do not have, have to borrow to get, and cannot afford to pay back. [Emphasis added]
How does that relate to H.R. 549? Well, let me share some numbers with you. Sixty percent of households with a lawful immigrant in them are on welfare, living off the hard work of others. Seventy percent of illegal alien households are on welfare, living off the hard work of others here in the United States of America. [Emphasis added]
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a major donor the to the GOP establishment, urged Republicans to join Democrats in helping to pass TPS for Venezuelans.
“The Chamber applauds Representatives Soto and Diaz-Balart for leading the House effort to pass H.R. 549, which would allow many Venezuelans currently in the U.S. the opportunity to legally remain and work in the U.S. while Venezuela is in a state of crisis,” the Chamber’s Neil Bradley said in a statement. “The U.S. government should make it clear that Venezuelan nationals who pose no risk to the safety or security of the U.S. will not be sent back into harm’s way.”
TPS has become a quasi-amnesty for otherwise illegal aliens created under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990 (INA) that prevents the deportation of foreign nationals from countries that have suffered through famine, war, or natural disasters. Since the Clinton administration, TPS has been transformed into a de facto amnesty program as the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations have continuously renewed the program for a variety of countries.
TRUMP’S CRAP ON BORDERS AND HIS PRETEND WALL IS ONLY ONE MORE TRUMP HOAX!
Only a complete fool would believe that Trump is any more for American Legal workers than the Democrat Party for Billionaires and Banksters!
“Trump Administration Betrays Low-Skilled American Workers.”
The latest ad from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) asks Trump to reject the mass illegal and legal immigration policies supported by Wall Street, corporate executives, and most specifically, the GOP mega-donor Koch brothers.
Efforts by the big business lobby, Chamber of Commerce, Koch brothers, and George W. Bush Center include increasing employment-based legal immigration that would likely crush the historic wage gains that Trump has delivered for America’s blue collar and working class citizens.
Mark Zuckerberg’s Silicon Valley investors are uniting with the Koch network’s consumer and industrial investors to demand a huge DACA amnesty
A handful of Republican and Democrat lawmakers are continuing to tout a plan that gives amnesty to nearly a million illegal aliens in exchange for some amount of funding for President Trump’s proposed border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
MAGA vs. the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The general public typically equates the Chamber of Commerce with local Mom and Pop businesses in their area which meet for networking and mutual support in local chapters across the country. This is erroneous. According to theHill:
While local chambers cater to the needs of car dealers and restaurant owners, the national Chamber operates as the lobbying arm of large corporations that have never met a big government program they did not like.
They are weapons dealers pushing billion-dollar battleships and telecommunication lobbyists protecting slow Internet at the world's highest prices. They are lobbyists for pharmaceutical companies, big banks, and Wall street traders who treat the American people as gullibles to be fleeced without mercy.
Even seasoned politicians are susceptible to having misconceptions about the Chamber. Former U.S. senator Jim Demint admits he naively thought it was lobbying for free enterprise and creating a better business environment for everybody. Now he says, "I pronounce them part of the swamp." Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich), a conservative, adds, "I believe in free markets and am against cronyism and corporate welfare, and they [the U.S. Chamber of Commerce] support those things."
The Chamber of Commerce and its president Thomas Donohue came into conflict with Donald Trump and his America First platform very early on. For 18 months during the runup to the 2016 election, the Chamber spared no effort to demonize Trump. In doing so, the Chamber was carrying water for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Donohue and company figured they could better deal with Hillary than Trump in the Oval Office. In this, the Chamber was exactly right.
The big hangups the Chamber and its client base had against Donald Trump involved immigration, trade, and tariffs. Adhering to its corporate masters’ call for a continuous supply of cheap labor, the Chamber lobbies for more immigration and resists tight border controls. Trade is much the same. Past trade pacts have allowed Wall Street to grow obscenely rich in the outsourcing of American jobs to third-world countries for sake of the bottom line of the multinationals. In the process, over a million ordinary Americans were left holding the bag.
All this is still playing out today. The president is striving to adjust the unfair trading arrangements that the political class, in cahoots with the big money interests on Wall Street, have saddled the U.S. with. But Trump and his trade team of Robert Lighthizer, Wilbur Ross, Steven Mnuchin, and Larry Kudlow are fighting not just China, but what is effectively a Fifth Column here at home. It's composed of the likes of the Chamber of Commerce and a sizable portion of the political establishment, which is used to dipping its beak in special-interest money.
As to this latter point, just look at the breaking news of the dealings of Joe Biden's son, Hunter, with the Chinese government. Writing in the New YorkPost, Peter Schweizer outlines in detail the $1.5 private equity deal the younger Biden made with the Chinese while Biden was vice-president. And now, Joe Biden is out on the stump soft-peddling the damage China has done to the U.S. economy and downplaying its threat to us and pretending to be for the working man. You can't make this up.
It's important not to conflate Big Business (Wall Street) with small business (Main Street). Wall Street is the financial economy. It pushes paper around. For example, they write derivatives on real assets, say stocks, to the point where the value of derivatives traded is far greater than the assets they are based on.Investopedia says this: "The derivatives market is, in a word, gigantic -- often estimated at more than $1.2 quadrillion on the high end."
A quadrillion is 1,000 trillion. In dollar terms, a quadrillion is 15-times the GDP of the entire world.
Main Street actually makes and sells things. For over a generation or more, Big Biz has dominated Main Street. This is why the Midwest and other places across the U.S. are littered with closed factories and why middle-class wages stagnated. In many ways, the financial economy is parasitic on the real economy. In the 2016 election, Donald Trump represented Main Street while Clinton was in the pocket of the big money interests on Wall Street.
What this means is that what is good for Main Street will not be good for Wall Street and Big Biz, at least not in the short run. What benefits the American worker -- fair trade policy and tight immigration control -- will initially hurt Big Biz and Wall Street. And the hurt will continue until the financial economy is scaled back to its proper size and is no longer allowed to the tail that wags the American economic dog. Until then, MAGA is at war with Big Biz and the bought-and-paid-for political establishment. And this explains much of the resistance to Trump's tariffs and trade position.
A closing observation says a lot. Thomas Donohue, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, is 80 years old. His board is pushing him to retire. The replacement they are looking at is former Congressman Paul Ryan. A perfect fit given the Chamber's agenda.
Chamber of Commerce Demands More Immigration: ‘U.S. Is Out of People’
JOHN BINDER
26 Apr 20194,424
4:12
The United States Chamber of Commerce is vowing to continue fighting President Trump’s shaping of the Republican Party into a pro-U.S. worker party of blue collar working and middle class Americans.
In an interview with the Washington Post, numerous Chamber of Commerce officials said the organization’s corporate lobbying efforts would soon attempt to court more elected Democrats to support their economic libertarian agenda of more free trade and increased legal immigration.
“The GOP’s drift toward protectionism, nativism, and isolationism since Donald Trump took over the party in 2016 is also at odds with the Chamber’s longtime support for expanding free trade, growing legal immigration and investing in infrastructure,” the Poststory details.
Specifically, Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tom Donahue said the U.S. needed more legal immigration so that corporations and business secure a never-ending flow of cheaper labor, claiming the country is “out of people.”
And they’re still looking to work with Trump even on areas where they’re not really in agreement, such as immigration. The Chamber advocates for protecting the “dreamers” from deportation and expanding rates of legal immigration. “The fundamental issue is that the United States of America is out of people,” said Donohue. “We have the lowest unemployment we’ve had in 65 years. We have brought more people back into the workforce and still have the lowest unemployment.” [Emphasis added]
Despite Donahue’s claims, at least 12 million Americans who want full-time jobs remain on the sidelines of the workforce. This includes 6.2 million Americans who are unemployed that want a job, 4.5 million Americans who are underemployed working part-time jobs, and 1.4 million Americans who continue to be entirely out of the workforce though they want full-time employment.
More than 12 million Americans remain unemployed, underemployed, or out of the labor force but wanting a job. Tight labor market still has some slack. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/15/feds-12m-americans-remain-sidelined-out-of-the-workforce/ …
Feds: More Than 12M Americans Remain Sidelined Out of the Workforce
While millions remain on the sidelines of the workforce, the Chamber of Commerce has routinely advocated for increasing legal immigration levels as a boon to corporations while depressing job prospects and wages for America’s working and middle class. Already, about 1.5 million illegal and legal immigrants are admitted to the country every year, to the detriment of U.S. wages.
The Chamber of Commerce’s push to increase legal immigration levels is vastly out of step with Republican voters and American voters as a whole. Last year, nearly two-out-threeU.S. voters said they supported reducing legal immigration, while most recently about 43 percent of Republican voters said immigration hurts the country.
Extensive research by economists like George Borjas and analyst Steven Camarota has found that the country’s current mass legal immigration system — wherein 1.2 million mostly low-skilled workers are admitted annually — burdens U.S. taxpayers and America’s working and middle class while redistributing about $500 billion in wealth every year to major employers and newly arrived immigrants.
Borjas has previously called the country’s legal immigration system the “largest anti-poverty program” in the world at the expense of blue-collar Americans and middle-class taxpayers.
Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, has found that every one-percent increase in the immigrant composition of American workers’ occupations reduces their weekly wages by about 0.5 percent. This means the average native-born American worker today has his weekly wages reduced by perhaps 8.5 percent because of current legal immigration levels.
In a state like Florida, where immigrants make up about 25.4 percent of the labor force, American workers have their weekly wages reduced by about 12.5 percent. In California, where immigrants make up 34 percent of the labor force, American workers’ weekly wages are reduced by potentially 17 percent.
Likewise, every one-percent increase in the immigrant composition of low-skilled U.S. occupations reduces wages by about 0.8 percent. Should 15 percent of low-skilled jobs be held by foreign-born workers, it would reduce the wages of native-born American workers by perhaps 12 percent.
Though corporate interests and the open borders lobby have sought to sway Trump from his “America First” illegal and legal immigration agenda, senior advisor Jared Kushner recently said the president’s top priority in terms of the White House’s reform efforts is protecting Americans’ wages.
Chamber of Commerce Considering Legal Action to Block Mexico Tariffs
JOHN CARNEY
31 May 2019634
1:44
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups are considering ways to challenge the new tariffs on goods imported from Mexico.
The powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which advocates for cheap labor policies and opposes American First trade initiatives, told reporters Friday that it is considering all options, including legal challenges, to thwart the Trump administration’s policy.
“We have no choice but to pursue every option available to push back,” Neil Bradley, executive vice president and chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said Friday.
President Donald Trump said Thursday that he will impose a 5 percent tariff on goods imported from Mexico if the Mexican government does not stem the flow of illegal immigrants from Central America.
Chamber of Commerce President and chief executive Tom Donahue told the Washington Post in April that the U.S. needed more legal immigration because the country is “out of people.” The chamber has pushed for legal protection for so-called “Dreamers” and led political resistance to efforts to deport more illegal border crossers.
The chamber began 2019 by opposing legislation that would have allowed President Donald Trump to impose reciprocal tariffs on specific foreign imports.
“The bill would effectively give the President unilateral authority to increase U.S. tariffs on imports from any foreign country,” Bradley wrote in a letter sent to many lawmakers on Capitol Hill. “The harm to Americans would be immediate: Tariffs are taxes, and they are paid by American families and American businesses.”
No comments:
Post a Comment