By CRYSTAL HOOTEN
Guest Columnist
In the wake of recent policy shifts, the United States has implemented mass deportations of illegal immigrants while also raising tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. These measures have sparked widespread protests, with demonstrators taking to the streets, waving the flags of their home countries. This raises an important question: If individuals are so deeply connected to their country of origin, why are they not residing there?
Unlike the U.S., most nations do not permit illegal immigrants to protest government policies openly. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that illegal immigrants, by definition, have broken the law simply by entering and remaining in the country unlawfully. No other nation would tolerate such open defiance of its sovereignty or the disrespect of its national symbols.
The American government is not responsible for providing illegal immigrants with the luxuries and freedoms they would not fight for in their own countries, such as Mexico. In Mexico and many other nations, such protests would not only be suppressed but could result in severe legal consequences. The expectation that the U.S. should bear the burden of providing these individuals with opportunities unavailable in their homeland is an unfair demand on American taxpayers and resources.
Beyond immigration, the issue of tariffs has ignited concerns over potential economic instability, rising prices and job losses. Critics argue that imposing tariffs leads to inflation, reduces purchasing power and exacerbates economic pressures that could result in further deportations. However, a deeper analysis reveals that tariffs can be a strategic tool rather than an outright economic threat.
When discussing tariffs, it is crucial to acknowledge the economic leverage the United States holds over its trading partners, particularly Canada and Mexico.
While these nations are retaliating with tariffs of their own, the reality is that their economies are far more dependent on the U.S. than vice versa. The United States remains the largest market for both countries, absorbing a significant percentage of their exports. Meanwhile, the U.S. benefits from a diversified economy with alternative sourcing options, making it less susceptible to retaliatory measures.
This strategic advantage means that while tariffs may create short-term disruptions, they also serve as a negotiation tool to secure better trade agreements for the United States.
History has shown that trade negotiations require leverage, and the U.S. economy provides that in abundance. Policymakers must recognize this dynamic and approach trade disputes with a long-term perspective, understanding that Canada and Mexico have more at stake in preserving strong economic ties with the U.S. than the other way around.
Ultimately, while tariffs may raise immediate economic concerns, they should not be perceived solely as a liability. Instead, they can be a calculated instrument to promote fair trade practices and policies that benefit the U.S. in the long run.
The challenge lies in managing these strategies effectively to maximize advantages while minimizing disruptions to businesses and consumers alike.
Tariffs:
Who suffers most?
How much do countries make from exporting steel and aluminum to the U.S.?
- Canada – $25.26 billion
- China – $13.86 billion
- Mexico – $13.28 billion
- S. Korea – $5.71 billion
- Brazil – $4.87 billion
- Germany – $4.49 billion
- Taiwan – $4.38 billion
- India – $4 billion
- Japan – $3.22 billion
- Italy – $2.73 billion
- Source: Financial Times