By on June 1, 2019

Ram Heavy Duty Saltillo Mexico assembly, Image: FCA

The profit-focused appeal of building vehicles in low-cost jurisdictions propelled many automakers to boost manufacturing capacity in America’s southern neighbor — a decision that now haunts them.

After President Donald Trump issued a Thursday statement declaring his administration would levy a 5 percent tariff on all Mexican-made goods starting June 10th, some $17 billion in market value evaporated from top automakers the following day. Ford, General Motors, and Fiat Chrysler all saw their share prices tumble. Should Trump follow through on his promise of an escalating tariff (a threat designed to stem illegal migration into the U.S.), the pain felt by both companies and their customers will be extreme.

Naturally, the industry is pushing back the best it can.

Models built south of the border are too numerous to list, but include regular and crew cab versions of the new-for-2019 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra, the Volkswagen Jetta and Toyota Tacoma, Chevrolet’s new Blazer, and Ram’s redesigned HD models.

A $1 billion BMW plant scheduled to open next week builds the next-generation 3 Series — a crucial model for Bimmer, and one with no shortage of similarly priced competition.

 

While the above list doesn’t show it, Mazda also produces U.S.-bound vehicles in Mexico. Honda, too.

In a statement, the White House said tariffs on Mexican goods would rise to 10 percent on July 1st if nothing is done to seal the border for illegal migrants, with the levy rising to 25 percent by October.

According to Bloomberg, Juergen Pieper, head of automotive research at Bankhaus Metzler, said BMW plans to slow the increase in output from its Mexican facility in response to the looming tariff. Once up to speed, the San Luis Potosi plant is expected to account for one-fifth of North American BMW production.

Deutsche Bank auto analyst Emmanuel Rosner claims a 25 percent tariff would cost the industry over $86 billion annually.

Mexico’s president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, urged calm on Friday. In a statement to media reported by Reuters, Lopez Obrador said, “I tell all Mexicans to have faith, we will overcome this attitude of the U.S. government, they will make rectifications because the Mexican people don’t deserve to be treated in the way being attempted.”

Trump’s proposed tariffs earned a swift rebuke from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, with Neil Bradley, the group’s executive vice president and chief policy officer, telling reporters, “We have no choice but to pursue every option available to push back.”

Nor are industry groups happy about the development. Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, said the tariffs “would have devastating consequences on manufacturers in America and on American consumers.”

David Schwietert, interim head of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said in a statement, “Any barrier to the flow of commerce across the U.S.-Mexico border will have a cascading effect – harming U.S. consumers, threatening American jobs and investment.”

[Image: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

143 Comments on “Automakers, Already Taking a Hit From Trump’s Mexican Tariff Threat, Worry the Pain Has Only Just Begun...”


  • avatar
    Pnm01

    I thought conservatives were against new taxes. This is just raising taxes on the American middle class. This does nothing to address either trade imbalances or immigration issues between our countries. Turns out, addressing these issues requires thoughtful consideration based on an understanding of complex systems.

  • avatar
    Ermel

    If it’s true that “a 25 percent tariff would cost the industry over $86 billion annually”, and if there are approx. 500,000 illegal immigrants per year according to Wikipedia, it would be cheaper to just legalize ’em and pay them $170k each (or spend the money in projects, whatever) to help them make the transition to be a productive member of society.

    • 0 avatar
      James Charles

      Ermel,
      The US could use soft power to stabilise the Central American countries so the people will not leave.

      • 0 avatar
        EGSE

        This has merit and IMO should be considered, but the U.S. would need an effective partner to work with. The “boots on the ground” have to be the governments of Honduras and Guatemala. The recent history shows their inability to govern their territory. The U.S. can’t go in and do it for them and the local populace quite rightly wouldn’t accept that. It also doesn’t provide a near-term remedy of stemming mass-migration.

        • 0 avatar
          James Charles

          EGSE,
          I remember these countries had interference by the US leaving them in the condition they are in now.

          The US could of supported better candidates instead of dictators all those years ago.

          The US made some poor decisions in the past in how it managed its relations with these countries.

          The West (not just the US) needs to develop as many countries as possible.

          Alienating and preventing the development of a country will not resolve issues.

          • 0 avatar
            SCE to AUX

            @James Charles,

            It’s not the responsibility of the the US to develop other countries.

            Do you complain about US military intervention in foreign countries? I hope you support those peacekeeping efforts, too.

          • 0 avatar
            James Charles

            SCE,
            Peacekeeping? Peacekeeping is used when all else has failed.

            So, all has failed with Central America and why doesn’t the US place Peacekeepers there?

            Ask Canada and Mexico to assist considering the White House considers immigration a trade related issue that directly impacts the current NAFTA that being finalised.

            There is one important fact many on TTAC omit when discussing US military and that is the expansive US business and political reach globally and requires a large enough military to protect it.. This is what made America great.

            The world is like living in a town. As more and more become affluent in a town the town becomes more stable.

            So why not make America’s neighbourhood a little more stable.

            Threatening other countries (Canada and Mexico who are your friends) seems counter productive.

            America can’t survive on its own, teamwork is needed to develop the team.

            I hope you don’t apply your aggressive views at work. How far do you think you’ll go.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            @James Charles, what would be an example of “soft power”? Because honestly Tariffs were the first thing I thought of. We are a little down on the whole nation building bit right now though given the last 20 years and honestly, it was my impression that the rest of the world wanted the big bad USA to stay out of stuff like this. Maybe the Chinese could come stabilize these places, I mean they need the oil, we don’t.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “It’s not the responsibility of the the US to develop other countries.”

            well, we should probably not have interfered with a lot of them in the first place. or isn’t any of that stuff taught in history class? Pretty much every time we’ve mucked around with other nations’ affairs it ends up turning out even worse for everyone.

            so no, I’d say trying to undo the damage we’ve done to the world IS our responsibility.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “It’s not the responsibility of the the US to develop other countries.”

            Is it a “have to”? No. But sometimes it makes excellent sense. If we’d told Japan and West Germany to go fix themselves after World War II, they’d have fallen right into the Soviet empire, and if that had happened, I doubt history would have played out as well for us as it has.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Is it a “have to”? No. But sometimes it makes excellent sense. If we’d told Japan and West Germany to go fix themselves after World War II, they’d have fallen right into the Soviet empire, and if that had happened, I doubt history would have played out as well for us as it has.”

            it might have delayed the collapse of the Soviet Union for a few more years at most, but it was still more or less doomed. Instead of the Berlin Wall falling, it would have been some other event.

            although it might have also led to us getting into a few more bloody and futile proxy wars…

      • 0 avatar
        MoDo

        How about stop the liberal run vacuum of sucking south americas best and brightest up north which leaves their countries of origin in essential ruins. There is no excuse (except for that) why the entirety of south America is in such rough shape, STILL. South Americans need to stay there and fix it. Being able to pay a human smuggler probably puts them in the top 5% as well.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          All this “throwing open the borders” does is cultivate more Democratic voters by turning the red states of Texas, Florida and Arizona purple, and other blue states bluer! Thereby making the election of a Republican President a mathematical impossibility.

          Oh, wait, they want to abolish the Electoral College, too!

          (::Drops mic!::)

          • 0 avatar
            jalop1991

            @sgeffe:

            Nailed. It.

            In all of this liberal talk and the twisting of the message from “wants the laws to apply” into “hates the humans who are breaking the laws,” I have yet to see ANY commentary discussing Mexico’s immigration policies and behaviors.

            Go ahead, wander across the border into Mexico without following their laws and see what happens.

            But nobody talks about THAT, least of all the president of Mexico.

          • 0 avatar
            Peter Gazis

            Its much more sinister than that.

            Part 1. Democrats are planning to hire these illegals. To pick fruits & vegetables; work in fast food restaurants and day laborers. Filling all the low end jobs. So republicans can’t find work.

            Part 2. Eventually there will be so many of these dark skinned people in the country speaking Spanish, that republicans will be too scared to leave their houses and go vote.

            Part 3. Forcing republican brothers and sisters to date.
            Finally. Since churches will not marry brothers and sisters Democrats will have succeeded in destroying marriage.

            It’s already been working. A large number of republicans walking around today are the product of inbreeding.

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            Ermel makes the smartest comment I’ve ever read on TTAC, now sgeffe makes the dumbest. Repeat after me: only citizens can vote.

    • 0 avatar
      Crosley

      Uh, no, we’re not bribing illegal invaders with pay thats almost 4 times what the average American makes. Do you know how many would flood over here?

      I’m fine spending $100 billion a year keeping them out. It’s less than we spend on ObamaCare every year.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        I still say we should end Medicare and SSI. That would free up hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

        besides, those programs were never meant for things like keeping obese, diabetic, hypertensive Boomers alive into their 90s. They’re going to suck way, way more out of the public till than they ever put in while working.

        but again, that’s not “socialism” because it benefits them.

        • 0 avatar
          Ol Shel

          Yeah, go back to where poor and middle-class people would just die, instead of getting care. Jesus would approve!

          Oh, and please refrain from using our Socialist roads, water system, police, electric grid, and don’t forget our Socialist military. Blecch!

          Not sure which is worse, Socialism, or the people who have no clue what Socialism is, but simply repeat what they heard on Cab;le news.

    • 0 avatar
      Ol Shel

      They’re already the most productive members of our society. Find me people that work harder. That’s why Trump has them work his resorts. They’re the best.

  • avatar
    gasser

    The tariff is a bad idea. When demand for increasingly costly Mexican goods falls off, Mexican jobs will vanish and the immigration to the U.S. will increase.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Most of the illegal immigration is now coming from caravans originating in Guatemala and Honduras, and marching through Mexico. They’re organized and funded by international organizations, and they’ve been getting help – transportation and food – from Mexican organizations as they travel through Mexico.

      The governments of Guatemala and Honduras have been threatened with loss of aid, but their officials are corrupt and are being paid off. The same thing is happening in Mexico.

      The Mexican president has the power to shut down the pipeline, but he’s a recently elected populist who doesn’t want to tarnish his reputation so soon in his term – and official anti-Americanism is fashionable among the elite in Mexico.

      Mexico’s economy is growing, and has been for several years it’s now bigger than Canada’s, $2.4 trillion vs. $1.7 trillion. Illegal entry by Mexicans is now very small – the majority at the border are now the poor from Central America.

      What Trump’s threat has accomplished is that Mexico is now willing to negotiate on border conditions, with a special envoy and negotiating team arriving in Washington on Wednesday. All the tariff scare talk is just that. The Mexicans know better and will make a deal.

    • 0 avatar
      James Charles

      gasser,
      The biggest issue the US will encounter that will affect US properity and security is the US is proving unreliable to deal with.

      Irrespective if you support a government and pacts, deals, contracts are made these must honoured.

      Trump is reducing the integrity of the US. This will impact business and politics, which will increase the pace of erosion of US influence globally.

      The biggest threats to the US are Russia and China. The US needs as much support as possible to contain these two countries.

      Treating your friends and Allies as poorly a the current US junta does will gradually grind down US military and political strength.

      The only US entities that are helping the US is the massive presence of US business globally. Trump is screwing these businesses and limiting their scope for expansion.

      So, I bet my balls that you will see a gradual erosion of US might. It will not occur over night.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        Bereft Insane Osama did enough of that in eight years!

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Why can the US not survive on it’s own should the need arises? Even in the 21st century the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are formidable obstacles. The entire might of the US Military would certainly be up to stopping any expeditionary force on either border and even if you did get in you’d have a highly armed populace to subdue.

        Furthermore the US can both feed it’s population and is energy independent. I’d argue we are one of the few large nation’s that could pull this off.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “Why can the US not survive on it’s own should the need arises?”

          we could. but everything would cost a lot (a LOT) more and most Americans would not be willing to shoulder those costs.

          we’re a nation of brats who want to have our cake and eat it too.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “Irrespective if you support a government and pacts, deals, contracts are made these must honoured.”

        unfortunately, he and his supporters believe “being a raging a**hole” is a virtue.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      “The tariff is a bad idea. When demand for increasingly costly Mexican goods falls off, Mexican jobs will vanish and the immigration to the U.S. will increase.”

      That’s why we need to secure the border. Duh.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Do you actually understand what immigration means? These people are trespassers. And should be dealt with accordingly.

      • 0 avatar
        jalop1991

        @slavuta:

        absolutely. Agreed 100%.

        But many in this country want to turn those facts into “you must hate those people, and hatred is bad.”

        (But then THAT turns into “and we hate you for hating them and you must die!”)

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          And you know what pathetic truth is… There are people from India, who come here legally, work here for years (wives have no right for work), their children are born here, schooled here and the waiting line to green card for them is about 70 years. Every few years they have to do tedious paperwork and they can be denied staying and in this case they must leave in 72 hours. And these border crossers can stick around and get citizenship in under 10 years.

          • 0 avatar
            jalop1991

            Not only can the border crossers stick around and get citizenship, in the meantime they’re getting free health care and public education and access to housing–all as bribes to stay here. And now we know why–those same states are giving them the local and state vote.

            And we all know what happens next.

            No one had better ever chide me about slippery slope arguments ever again. We’re watching it live right now, and it looks just like the skier on Wild World of Sports.

          • 0 avatar
            jalop1991

            Not only can the border crossers stick around and get citizenship, in the meantime they’re getting free health care and public education and access to housing–all as bribes to stay here. And now we know why–those same states are giving them the local and state vote.

            And we all know what happens next.

            No one had better ever chide me about slippery slope arguments ever again. We’re watching it live right now, and it looks just like the skier on Wild World of Sports.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            One way or another, you voted for it. But for every one collecting free healthcare, how many do you quietly approve of, milking cows? Hundreds? Thousands? And that’s just one industry out of scores that employ illegals.

            Or are you currently boycotting milk, eggs, fruits, etc?

            And you betcha they’re paying into the tax system, but not filing for a refund. Every time they go to a store, they pay taxes there too.

            So once they’re US Citizens, can they leave behind the shoveling of sh!t, get a real job with the city, move into your prestigious neighborhood, and you’re good with them?

            Why shouldn’t their US Citizen kids get access to a free education same as yours?

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            A non-citizen adult cannot vote, cannot collect welfare, and cannot get free health care other than in an emergency (i.e. life or death situation). Yes, their kids can go to school, because I don’t think you’d like what would happen if they couldn’t. Get your facts straight, folks.

          • 0 avatar
            vvk

            > A non-citizen adult cannot vote, cannot collect
            > welfare, and cannot get free health care other > than in an emergency (i.e. life or death

            You are misinformed. Not sure about voting but the rest is very doable.

    • 0 avatar

      “When demand for increasingly costly Mexican goods falls off, Mexican jobs will vanish and the immigration to the U.S. will increase.”

      And how that is the bad thing? All those immigrants will vote for Democrats.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        “All those immigrants will vote for Democrats.”

        Well, If Republicans came up with some kind of immigration plan that doesn’t treat these folks like some kind of Brown Mongol Horde Bent On The Destruction Of America, maybe a lot of them would vote Republican.

        But treating them like untermenschen plays will with the current Republican base.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          “…Destruction Of America…” – this is exactly whats happening.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Riiiiight….

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            it’s only a “destruction” of an “idea” of America which never actually existed. It only exists in the hazy memories of Boomers who think Leave it to Beaver and Ozzie & Harriet are documentaries.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Mike,

          don’t be a fool. Example. I used to take my kids to this nice water park. But I wouldn’t recommend anyone to take their kids there anymore. Because now its became favorite spot for Latino gangsta people, with tattoos starting on their feet and end on the faces. And if their crosses and chains are made of real gold, I must wonder, where did they get money for this? Must be drugs. So, there we go. “Hello, Mr. Smith” culture being replace with gangsta culture. End of America.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            And how do you know that these people are ‘illegal immigrants’ and not American citizens?

            What you are describing is the visible signs of a failing society, that values ‘celebrity’ over accomplishment, that disdains ‘intellectualism’, that fears ‘those who are different’, and that supports the sale/consumption of drugs not having learned from the failures of Prohibition.

      • 0 avatar
        jalop1991

        @hotpotato:

        non-citizen adults are getting the state and local votes, so to say “cannot vote” is pure BS. Welfare? They get all kinds of free money. Health care? Yep, no problem.

        What cave are you living in? ‘Cuz, even bin Laden got cell reception in his cave.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          every state requires you to be a US citizen (n.b. or naturalized) in order to be eligible to register to vote.

          so do you have any evidence of your claim? Or are you just going to parrot the “millions of illegal votes” Trump invented and you were probably dim enough to believe.

  • avatar
    Steve203

    A few thoughts to float:

    Even US built vehicles contain Mexican parts. When the POTUS floated the idea of entirely closing the Mexican border a couple months ago, the big three cried a river because their US plants would close within days due to lack of parts that are only made in Mexico.

    Even a 25% tariff on a complete car imported from Mexico may result in a price increase of less than 25%, because part of the selling price is allocation of US overhead and amortization of R&D and tooling, which would not be impacted by a tariff.

    The big three, in particular, have been ramping up prices, and bragging about the increasing average transaction price and gross margin per vehicle, so the tariff would give them cover to increase prices even more.

    There are ways to game the system using transfer pricing to reduce tariff liability.

    I figure the initial threat to close the border had lobbyists from GM ringing up Wilbur Ross, and this tariff scheme was worked out to sound good to the mob, without harming GM.

  • avatar
    mtunofun1

    I find it funny how some people don’t want illegals coming into the US, but don’t want to give Mexico a chance to be prosperous, like us, enough so that they have a strong enough middle class and opportunity for upward mobility. They won’t have an incentive to leave their native country if they make a living wage. Make America great again and no place else!

    • 0 avatar
      sfredst

      I find it astonishing that you think Mexico has not had a chance to be prosperous. It has been self governed since 1821. Spanish culture countries are inferior in design to the US. They could have copied our structure, but they did not. They do not have our advanced thinking with respect to freedom, opportunity and limited government – and this is why their culture is an unwelcome dilution of ours. When we become as crappy as Mexico – and I can tell we are well on our way when ideas like “living wage” are rife – then as your post implies, they will stop coming. Don’t bet on them raising themselves. They don’t know how and are too corrupt and stupid to follow the example just across the border.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        Well said, sfredst.

        I’ll add that Mexico’s prosperity is not the responsibility of the US to begin with. But as you point out, they have a good example to their north (two, actually) that they choose to ignore.

        • 0 avatar
          James Charles

          SCE,
          So, why do you think its acceptable to bully and standover another when they want to acheive?

          Do you intentionally screw over a co worker if they want to move up and advance?

          Why do you not want to see someone do well?

      • 0 avatar
        Dingbat

        Maybe you should spend less time on this site and more time reading about actual history and political economy?

        1821? I wonder what happened in 1846? Then you have US leaders supporting the most regressive Mexican compradors. Even supposed liberal Bill Clinton’s NAFTA deal served to inflate the riches of the US corporate class while gutting American labor AND the Mexican peasants. And you’re gullible enough to ignore empirical fact yet hop aboard the xenophobia train. Clinton (and all the other billionaire servants) is proud of you.

        Then we get to the current mess of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Might as well read up on the United Fruit Company in Guatemala circa 1954 to that last US sponsored coup in Honduras.

        Holy hell it’s hard to read your mixture of ignorance and hubris without feeling sorry for the future. And you’ll be sorry in the future too. Your economic overlords see USians as expendable as Mayan villagers.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        The border is being kept open because Mexicans are considered by Democrats to be ignorant enough to bring the legal environment here that has kept them poor there. That’s it. They are valuable to the Democrats only to the degree that they don’t understand why we have the bill of rights, and why the bill of rights is the reason we’re so much better off than them.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          A number illegal aliens have actually voted in US elections, and some were caught, prompting the ‘crats in some states to enact legislation allowing for non-citizens and felons to vote.

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            Cite a source for this assertion that anyone has passed legislation allowing non-citizens to vote in national elections. I’ll wait.

            Stop making sh!t up.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Cite a source for this assertion that anyone has passed legislation allowing non-citizens to vote in national elections. I’ll wait.”

            you’ll be waiting a long time, because it’s crap that old people get by sitting there slack-jawed while Hannity screams it over and over into their faces.

      • 0 avatar

        @sfredst Come on, these people are serfs, they have no clue about political or legal system or democracy. It is like asking why Medieval Europeans did not prosper and enjoy democracy. Or why Russians have such a difficulty with Capitalism while Russians are one of the best educated people in the world.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Mexico has the 15th largest economy in the world (177 countries with reliable statistics), and one of the fastest growth rates (2.7%). Most of the people trying to cross the border are not Mexicans, but Central Americans, mostly Hondurans and Guatemalans who travel through Mexico. If they were an invading army, Mexico would be considered a combatant under international law, for allowing them to pass through their territory.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        But since they are, in essence, refugees, they cannot be considered an army and Mexico cannot be considered a combatant. The heart of this problem is one man trying to distract Americans from what he’s trying to do to American politics.

        • 0 avatar
          bking12762

          Is there a distinction between economic and political refugees?

        • 0 avatar
          EGSE

          “But since they are, in essence, refugees”

          “In essence” is in this case a stated belief; it has no foundation in U.S. law:

          U.S. Code Title 8 Chaper 12 Subchapter I Section 1101 (a)(42)(a) and (b)

          (42) The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101#a_42_A
          ==========================================================
          The protected classes are defined by race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion

          “Economic” or “live in a high-crime area” aren’t listed as qualifying criteria.

          Note that (b) refers to the power of the President to further define protected classes.

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            Yep, “refugees” by the legal definition describes many of them to a T. People get murdered in those countries for having a political opinion, for refusing to pay protection money to gangs, for being gay, and so on. Yes, many of those folks are refugees.

            And if the rest are economic migrants — great. If a country doesn’t have enough kids to replace the adults that die off, its economy shrinks. And when people get comfortably middle class, they have fewer kids. Happens in every country in the world, including ours. So we need those replacement workers.

            Look at xenophobic Japan — in the 80s we quaked as they became the richest country around; now we feel sorry for them as they endure decade after decade of stagnation. The old folks keep dying off, the young adults keep opting not to make babies, and there’s only so many jobs you can replace with robots. At some point they need to let some of those Filipino nurses and other guest workers stay.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “The heart of this problem is one man trying to distract Americans from what he’s trying to do to American politics.”

          Huh? when has he been trying to distract anyone? His supporters are all for it, they’re not even trying to hide their behavior anymore.

      • 0 avatar
        James Charles

        Lorenzo,
        Your comment is flawed;
        1. They are not a military force (children escaping harm???)
        2. International Law??

        You know imagine the number of trucks that moved from Canada into the US were Army trucks, they to could be hiding combatants.

        Trump might even consider Canada a security threat to the US and apply tariffs on Canadian trade.

        There might be combatants sleeping undernyour bed at night. Sleep with the lights on my man!

        A real man you are, scared and fearful all the time! You sound more dangerous than the immigrants.

        • 0 avatar
          EGSE

          James Charles, if you have an informed argument then state it. What you posted is an emotional diatribe.

          • 0 avatar
            James Charles

            EGSE,
            I believe my comment is as relevant as Lorenzo’s.

            He’s attempting to instill fear by making a comparison of refugees and combatants.

            Quite inane a comment from Lorenzo. So why didn’t you “correct Lorenzo.

            Hmmmmm, are you one of the insecure?

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          @James Charles, curious, would Australia treat people who enter the country illegally as refugees or criminals? The US has processes in place for refugees. Sneaking in and not going to your court hearings is not part of this process. Would Australia allow this or is it some crazy standard you only hold other countries to? And why does Mexico treat people crossing their southern border illegally different than, say a Marine who crossed from the North. One goes to prison, one walks through the country. Yet when the US treats the Southern Border different than the northern one, well…Das Racist.

          Interestingly, why is the Southern Border along the Rio Grande treated differently than the one at the Straights of Florida? Remember when that boy floated across on a makeshift raft and we sent in armed federal agents to deport him? Remember how we had the US Navy Payroll the Straights of Florida and send anyone they caught back to Cuba? Peppridge Farm Remembers.

    • 0 avatar
      bking12762

      Mtunofun1,”I find it funny how some people don’t want illegals coming into the US, but don’t want to give Mexico a chance to be prosperous, like us, enough so that they have a strong enough middle class and opportunity for upward mobility” is a bomb-throwing comment. But your comment is a dud as you do not back it up with any facts and you gloss over the illegal immigration problem. Whoever said they don’t want to give Mexico a chance to be prosperous? Please name one person.

      • 0 avatar
        mtunofun1

        Bking12762 I guess one person would be you, sorry don’t know your real name. Please reference the South Park episode where everyone yells, “ Dey took r jerbs”!! This was our response when a lot of auto manufacturing moved to Mexico. If Mexicans gain more purchasing power, that’s good for everyone (more consumer spending). Mexico becoming an emerging market should not be a threat. If more and more Mexicans become middle class, they won’t be a burden to the US ( no reason to immigrate north if plenty of jobs back home). Basically you’re saying that you don’t want Mexico to have good paying jobs and that you want to keep their population living in poverty. Is that our burden? No. But if we’re actively trying to take their jobs, then yes. If that’s the case, then I don’t blame them from trying to come to the land of oppurtunity.

        • 0 avatar
          bking12762

          Mtunofun1- you are conflating two issues. One is illegal immigration which has its own arguments. I wish the very best for Mexico and its citizens but not at the expense of the United States. What you say about Mexico and the middle class is absolutely true and nobody has an issue with that. You are trying to make that the issue and it is not and it is exposing your political bias.

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            ^This!

            Every citizen of their own country should put the interests of THEIR COUNTRY first! Then worry about others!

            There will always be opportunities to be able to work with others. But we in the US as a country have been putting everyone else above ourselves for far too long! Thankfully someone has the moxie and the will to try to level the field a bit!

    • 0 avatar
      James Charles

      mtunofun,
      Would you support a middle aged person re-educating, getting a better paid job? If your answer is yes, why then state Mexico had previous opportunity to advance economically and now penalise Mexico for wanting a better life?

      Your logic is of little value.

      Maybe fear and insecurity is driving you.

      • 0 avatar
        James Charles

        Sorry tunofun, my comment should of been directed to sfredst.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @sgeffe, If you are going to post your opinions you should first study the pertinent history.

        The USA did not enter into WWI until its ruling elite believed that France would lose and default on the loans the USA had provided it. And the USA required the UK to pay ‘cash’ for any and all support. Until that time the UK was the world’s largest investor, including in US railways. America used WWI to try to bankrupt its main competitor, the UK.

        In WWII the USA also made the UK pay until there was nothing left to pay. Then the UK traded territory for support. The USA did not declare war on Nazi Germany, Germany declared war on the USA. And Japan attacked the USA because the US had restricted Japanese access to raw resources. The USA did this because Japan was challenging the American Pacific empire.

        The USA invaded Central American and Caribbean nations, on numerous occasions in order to further or protect the interests of American corporations.

        The USA funded and assisted coups in Africa, Asia and the Middle East in order to further or protect the interests of American corporations.

        The CIA destabilized Jamaica in order to overthrow the democratically elected government of left leaning Michael Manley.

        The USA isolated Cuba, and originally sponsored an invasion of that island, due to the demands of the American corporations (and the Mafia) whose properties had been confiscated after the revolution.

        The US used the Marshall Plan to help ‘rebuild’ Western Europe, in order to ensure access to that market for American corporations.

        The original Canada-USA Free Trade Agreement was initiated on behalf of American corporations who wanted guaranteed access to the Canadian market and the ability to buy-out independent Canadian companies. For example US Steel bought out Stelco, which had much better profit margins, using promises of guaranteeing production and Canadian jobs. They quickly turned their back on these promises, shutting down most of production and therefore eliminating a competitor.

        The military of the USA has served as a proxy for American corporate interests since the Spanish-American War. It has never put the interests of other nations ahead of American interests.

        And we have not even addressed how the USA invaded and annexed approximately 1/4 of the independent state of Mexico.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          @Arthur, I for one am grateful that my nation priortizes the protection of it’s citizenery enough to maintain a fighting force large and capable enough to prevent a foreign power from annexing 1/4 of my country.

          You aren’t wrong though, but pretty one sided…Mexico was far from blameless in the start of that war and when you incite a war and lose, well bad things happen.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          And with respect to WWII, should we have stayed out and let Hitler conquer Continental Europe and frankly, probably Russia? Remember the Russians repelled Barbarossa by the skin of their teeth. Do they do that if Hitler has already conquered Western Europe to include the UK and he doesn’t need to leave a force in place to repel the eventual invasion?

          Did people profit? Of course but to portray us as some sort of shadowey bad guys in that war is idiotic. We were fighting the dude sending 11 million folks to the gas chamber, remember?

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @Art: Sorry I thought that I posted a reply yesterday but cannot locate it.

            1) The USA spends an inordinate amount of money on defense. When it has zero other nations threatening to invade it. Particularly since it is separated from its major military competition by 3 large oceans (Atlantic, Arctic, Pacific). However it has helped to diffuse any possible social upheaval/revolution by creating an entire underclass dependent on military jobs/spending.
            2) The USA entered WWII only after Pearl Harbour, and Hitler declaring war on the USA. Not the other way around. And the USA profited handsomely from WWII. Bankrupting its #1 economic competition (the UK). The through the Marshall Act and numerous trade agreements ensuring access to foreign markets for its corporations, as well as in many nations allowing its corporations to acquire domestic manufacturers/organizations. What some call ‘economic imperialism’.
            3) The USA ensured the primacy of its corporate interests through various invasions/incursions/civil wars/revolutions that placed American puppets in power. Regardless of the wishes of the people.
            4) Would Germany have lost WWII without American military intervention. Well thanks to the Battle of Britain and the Royal Navy, Hitler had given up on the idea of invading the UK. And if you check the numbers, Japan had far more troops engaged against the Soviets in Korea/Manchuria than against US troops in the Pacific. Japan even had more troops fighting the British/Australian/Indian troops in Burma, etc than against U.S. troops on the islands. As for the difference in the size of battles in the Eastern v the Western front, the numbers are staggering. So yes, it can be argued that the Soviets would have eventually won, without American military intervention. By the time that the Western Front was launched the Soviets had already won in Stalingrad and broken the Siege of Leningrad and won the Battle of Kursk, and therefore the tide had well and truly turned.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Latin culture is one of the worst for prosperity building exercise. For example, Japanese – yes.

    • 0 avatar
      Crosley

      “don’t want to give Mexico a chance to be prosperous”

      ______________________

      It’s not up to the US to make Mexico prosperous, but everything has been in place now for centuries for them to do so. What more does the US need to do to make Mexico not poor?

  • avatar
    philipwitak

    another really dumb move by a really stupid orange man-child

  • avatar
    VW4motion

    Another dumb move by pos trump.
    Mexico will pay for the wall ?
    Mexico will pay for the tariff ?
    And the trumpkins still keep bending over.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      snowflaking?

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        Naw, VW4Motion is just a poor communicator who thinks he’s being glib. He’s not “snowflaking”.

        Let me translate.

        He’s pointing out that Trump just makes things up as he goes and, as a result, Trump has broken promises that Trump didn’t fully understand when he made them.

        For instance, there’s no real way to make Mexico pay for the wall. All of the ways that we could sort-of do that end up making Americans pay for it in real life. Trump clearly didn’t understand this when he made the proposal, though any competent economist would have pointed out the problem immediately.

        Same with tariffs: tariffs on foreign trade are really taxes on the American people. We’re essentially punishing ourselves with taxes until our our trading partners say “enough!”. I remember when Republicans were opposed to taxes — but, it turns out it’s just the word “tax” that Republicans dislike, not the concept.

        Why Trump supporters still support him, despite these obvious problems, is a mystery to those of us who used to think of the Republicans as a principled political party with an intellectual core (regardless of whether we agreed with them or not).

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “I remember when Republicans were opposed to taxes — but, it turns out it’s just the word “tax” that Republicans dislike, not the concept.”

          they’re also opposed to “handouts.” Except when farmers need billions to offset how they’re getting screwed by their policies. Then it’s just “relief.” but not a “handout,” no sir-ee Bob!

          The Republican party and its adherents are the most obscene practitioners of “ok for me, but not for thee” in existence.

  • avatar
    Dingbat

    Just wait til sanctions are placed on Korean, Japanese and German imports.

    Even the most xenophobic USA-ians will hesitate before proclaiming the superior value/quality of Dodge. LOL.

    But TTAC is a reflection of real life, so its Best and Brightest can be duped into idiotic hubris. You guys really need to step outside Walmart once in a while.

  • avatar
    Dingbat

    Just wait til sanctions are placed on Korean, Japanese and German imports.

    Even the most xenophobic USA-ians will hesitate before proclaiming the superior value/quality of Dodge. LOL.

    But TTAC is a reflection of real life, so its Best and Brightest can be duped into idiotic hubris. You guys really need to step outside Walmart once in a while.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      I guess you’re beneath appreciating that a bunch of people who’ve been manipulated by income inequality talk, unionization, and the evils of Wal-Mart making volume-pricing available to the working class are turning on the villains who duped them into working for their own demises. Thanks for providing comic relief. That’s what you’re good for.

  • avatar
    TotalNonStopCars

    LMFAO. Another clickbait article and here they are, all hooked. I couldnt imagine being in the same room with these crybabies in real life. Must sound like romper room.

  • avatar
    bking12762

    Mtunofun1- you are conflating two issues. One is illegal immigration which has its own arguments. I wish the very best for Mexico and its citizens but not at the expense of the United States. What you say about Mexico and the middle class is absolutely true and nobody has an issue with that. You are trying to make that the issue and it is not and it is exposing your political bias.

  • avatar
    Peter Gazis

    Small car Deathwatch!

    Sub-compacts made in Mexico
    – Ford Fiesta
    – Honda Fit
    – Hyundai Accent
    – Kia Rio
    – Nissan Versa
    – Toyota Yaris/Mazda2
    Compacts made in Mexico
    – Kia Forte
    – Mazda3
    – Nissan Sentra
    – VW Golf
    – VW Jetta

    • 0 avatar
      James Charles

      Peter,
      That’s on the cards!

      I think some kind of deal will be made.

      The biggest issue is not to Mexico, but the US. Future deals with the Thump regime will now have less credence. Trump does not honour deals, not good for business. But Trump is a genius businessman.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve203

      “Small car Deathwatch!”

      The only model on that list that is from an “American” company is the Fiesta, and Ford already stopped building it. Ford also builds the Fusion in Mexico and would probably welcome an excuse to kill it too.

      Where it will really hurt, will be at GM and FCA: all the Jeep Compasses and Dodge Journeys come from Mexico, along with some Ram Classics and all the Ram HDs. iirc, the Hemi V8s that FCA puts in it’s highest profit versions of the Charger and Challenger come from Mexico.

      Two of the three plants building the Chevy Equinox are in Mexico. The new Blazer, some Silverados and some Trax come from Mexico.

      • 0 avatar
        Peter Gazis

        Steve203

        1. Jeep Compass is built in Belvedere Illinois

        2. The Silverado/Sierra & RAM1500 are built in multiple locations. GM & FCA can mitigate some of their losse by shipping more Mexican made Trucks to Canada, and keeping U.S. made trucks in the U.S.
        3. GM can also sell bring every Equinox built in Canada to the U.S. Supply the U.S. market with Traxes made in South Korea.
        4. Small cars are low profit vehicles, and sales are falling. Doesn’t make sense to move production anywhere else.

        • 0 avatar
          Steve203

          “1. Jeep Compass is built in Belvedere Illinois”

          The first gen Compass and Patriot were built in Belvidere. Sole source for 2nd gen North American Compass is Toluca, MX. Toluca is also the sole source for the Dodge Journey.

          The new Chevy Blazer is only built in Mexico.

          “GM & FCA can mitigate some of their losse by shipping more Mexican made Trucks to Canada, ”

          Yes, the Silverado, Ram Classic and Equnox are built in multiple locations. Sales volumes are so small in both Canada and Mexico that there is probably no way that the Mexican and Canadian markets could absorb enough units to keep the Mexican plants running, while the US could not be supplied with sufficient quantities of each from only US/Canadian plants. For instance, I doubt that CAMI could supply all the 332,618 Equinoxes Chevy sold in the US last year. The Equinox is Chevy’s second best seller, trailing only the Silverado. Chevy is also losing Silverado production capacity at the Oshawa plant.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      The Honda Fits we get are made in Japan. HR-V production squeezed it out of Mexico years ago. Who cares if the HR-V goes away? It is an embarrassment to traditional Honda buyers. Only BAFO would find any underlying value in the argument your trying to make with your list.

      • 0 avatar
        Peter Gazis

        Todd,
        The Honda Fit sold in the U.S. will be made in Mexico until October. When Honda retools the plant to build more HR-Vs. Honda has been unclear about plans to import the vehicle from Japan.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          Odd. A year or two ago, I was looking at them with a friend and all the ones on the dealer’s lot and the ones we looked at on cars.com had J-VINs. Maybe HR-V demand is softening.

          • 0 avatar
            Peter Gazis

            ToddArlassF1

            Yes, I’ve heard Honda fans complain about the HR-V & CR-V feeling cheap. These fans were driving Honda Pilots though. I would expect the HR-V & CR-V would feel cheap by comparison.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        Yes, HRV needs to go: http://www.viravaxx.eu/vaccines/human-rhinovirus-hrv/

        That’s all I think of when I see one on the road.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      I see it as a good thing if MAzda3 will be built in Japan again! Go J-vin

  • avatar

    shut the front door.

  • avatar
    Crosley

    Seems like there’s an easy solution for Mexico to solve this, it’s really always been in their court, but they profit off of human smuggling. We have a genuine crisis at the border right now, and Mexico throws gasoline on the flames.

    I personally could care less if the crap car companies that build in Mexico have a new 5% tax on them. That’s less than the sales tax in almost all 50 states. Seems fair to me.

    Looks like Mexico really will be paying for that wall.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      “Looks like Mexico really will be paying for that wall.”

      That’s not how tariffs work. Sure, Mexico might be economically damaged, but tariffs are ultimately paid by the US consumer. In fact, if we damage Mexico’s economy, we’ll pay for that too.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      There’s more corruption south of the border unless you count the US Lobby System. But if you think things are out of control now, wait until “drones” can safely transport humans and human size loads. I’m positive they’re test flying big oversize prototypes or mules in China as we speak.

      The cartels are US Citizens too, and they’re landing jobs in the DHS, ICE, CBP, etc, so when corrupt US Federal officers happen, which side of the border do you blame more?

      Tariffs are meant to harm corporations, and truly they can only pass on a small fraction of any added expenses or taxes to consumers, no different than recalls, (victim) settlements or fines.

      Or VW Jetta MSRP should be around $80,000! Obviously big expense are passed around or subsidized by other models/lines.

      Expect more forced options (or added standard features) to offset tariffs. Except car prices have remained consistent for the most part, since there’s been cars, of course adjusted for inflation.

      Automakers won’t release actual profitability of their vehicle lineup individually, or which ones aren’t profitable at all. And it’s possible none are “profitable” until development costs for a new generation are paid for.

      But ultimately it’s consumers that set “prices”

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      Crosley, that’s not how tariffs work. A tariff is a tax. The selling company might absorb some of it, the buyer usually pays most of it, but the “targeted” nation’s government pays nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Goose egg.

      • 0 avatar
        bking12762

        “The selling company might absorb some of it, the buyer usually pays most of it, but the “targeted” nation’s government pays nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Goose egg.” This is true if you do not consider loss of revenue not paying for anything.

  • avatar
    downunder

    At last I know why Brexit is happening! The U.K. gets out of the european union (somehow). Boris Johnston, Trump’s pick for Prime Minister, and isn’t that a glowing recommendation, immediately gets to grips with the incoming asylum seekers transiting through europe to get to the welfare paradise of the U.K. He puts a tariff on all French, Italian, Greek and any other countries vehicle imports until they stop the migrants getting to Calais. This a brilliant plan. Make your people pay extra for another governments failures, collapse the economy of another country (wars have been started for less) and possibly destroy your nations manufacturing industries. Brillant! Perhaps a little bit more muscle on the border to stop the migrants at the border is a better way. I’d rather pay for that than because I can afford to, not when I don’t have a job because nobody can afford my products.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Maybe it’s time for another recession. It appears the longer the tariff war lasts the more it will hurt the US economy. China and some of the other countries can find other countries to buy their agricultural products (South America) and stop buying US debt. Maybe this will be a good thing especially before the 2020 Elections. The longer the tariff wars go on the more it will hurt not just other countries but the US.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      South Africa is in the process of murdering everyone who can actually grow crops, so they’re unlikely competitors.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Jeff S, “Maybe it’s time for another recession. It appears the longer the tariff war lasts the more it will hurt the US economy.”

      Even tariff wars are considered wars of attrition. They go on until one party capitulates and seeks a new equilibrium. I think America can weather the global economic storm better than China and Mexico.

      For decades both American political parties have been complaining about the trade imbalance that has the US at a disadvantage.

      President Trump is doing something NONE of his predecessors have done, President Trump is actually DOING something to ensure fair and equitable trade.

      Personally, I often wondered, sometimes out loud to my friends, “Why doesn’t the US just slap tariffs on what it imports, equal to the tariffs our trading partners slap on American-made goods? That would be fair trade!”

      Well, the answer. my friend, is blowing in the wind. President Trump did just that! Finally!

      But no matter how bad it gets, America will never recoup the Trillions of Dollars lost to decades of trade imbalance.

      So I’m enjoying this while I can because all good things come to an end. And eventually, so will President Trump’s time in office. Why would anyone want to go back to the policies of the past?

      I say, “Hit’m while their up, hit’m while their down, hit’m all-around.”

      Make them pay for helping illegal aliens cross our southern border.

      • 0 avatar
        jalop1991

        @highdesertcat:

        “Personally, I often wondered, sometimes out loud to my friends, “Why doesn’t the US just slap tariffs on what it imports, equal to the tariffs our trading partners slap on American-made goods? That would be fair trade!” ”

        Tom Clancy, “Debt of Honor” (1994). The Cresta incident angered Al Trent from Massachussetts, as the manufacturer in his district got stonewalled during auto parts negotiations when the Japanese made up reasons why the Japan-made gas tanks were better. After the Cresta crash, Trent led Congress to pass trade laws that mimic those of the trading partner. Oh, Japan uses lengthy “inspections” to prevent goods coming into their country? We can have the same processes.

        Those car carriers sat out in the ocean, piling up, while incoming cars and parts were inspected at the same lengths the Japanese themselves used in their ports. The Japanese complained, saying that was “unfair”.

        Clancy had it nailed.

        And yet, look at all the people here who would agree with those fictional Japanese that such trade laws would be “unfair”.

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    what’s with all the low IQ FOX news parrots on the site?

  • avatar
    Freddie

    President Art-of-the-Deal ought to sit down with the Mexican president:
    “I know you need to dump some of your poor people on us or else your pot will boil over into a revolution. But if we were to take in your huddled masses, what can you do for us? You have oil. We can always use oil. Especially if it’s cheap. Like free. So, here’s the price of admission for every legal immigrant you want to send our way: a gift card for 500 barrels of Mexican oil.”

    Or to put it another way, illegal immigrants are willing to spend thousands of dollars to be smuggled in to the country by coyotes – who often leave them stranded in the desert. Why not collect that money from immigrants in exchange for legal entry?

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Flooding the market with free oil hurts domestic production. That domestic production is probably the single greatest hedge for our own national security. Iran closes the Straights of Hormuz? Sucks to be you, China.

      This is why I kind of hope the Chinese follow through on the Rare Earth threats. The US has deposits within our borders, but it is cheaper to get it from China. This was the case with oil. Then OPEC got stupid and all of the sudden Fracking became a thing. The genie was out of the bottle and it got cheaper and cheaper. This will happen with rare earths if they follow through and in the long run weaken China’s position on this. It’s interesting because it may be the first time I’ve seen China not playing the long game. That alone tells me current policy has changed the game.

      • 0 avatar
        HotPotato

        AFAIK:
        1. We have only one rare earths mine, in Nevada.
        2. Its products are sent to China for processing because we have no native processing capacity.

        Not like oil where we have loads of it and recently stumbled over an affordable way to extract it, and have native refining capacity.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Highdesertcat–I am not totally against the tariffs but both sides are hurt when they are applied. As for Mexico it would be better for the US to use more border patrol. I want Mexico to have better paying jobs because it means less Mexicans will need to come to the US. As for Central America it would be better to deal with them directly.

    China is different with the theft of technology. I am not completely opposed to tariffs but the cost of tariffs not only affects China but US businesses like agriculture. The longer the tariffs last the more likely that our agricultural industry loses the market in China permanently. China has been making trade alliances with Central and South America and over time can replace most of what the US farmers export to China. As for businesses many can go thru a third party to reduce the effects of tariffs.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Jeff S, sorry about the delayed response but I’ve been really busy and this is just to let you know I won’t be on ttac for awhile to continue our discussion because I blew a headgasket in my motorhome’s engine yesterday.

      It’s bad! It seized the engine from ~2600rpm to a dead stop!

      We pulled the engine this morning and will disassemble it tonight.

      I shoulda, coulda, woulda bought a spare Hellephant…….

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    While no doubt the automakers would all suffer, I do wonder if you are Ford and you look at that list if you don’t see some opportunity. Trucks are the bread and butter for the big 3 and they certainly seem the least exposed there and their Mexican products are scheduled to die anyway.

    I know the supply chain and components would certainly see added cost, but all of the automakers see that.

    Anyway, just an interesting thought but if I were an automakers towards the bottom of that list I might be trying to make some lemonade from those lemons.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Yes, make lemonade out of those lemons. No more Fiesta or Fusion. If FCA were smart they would use this as an excuse to cut the Fiat 500 and the Heritage Ram from the US market as well. GM it is another matter with the new Blazer and some of the Silverados. This would be a good time for Ford to look for another auto manufacturer to merge with or at least have a joint venture to make some cars for them. This might be a good opportunity for a foreign manufacturer to buy Ford stock especially since it is going lower and lower each day. Getting Ford’s dealer and supply network along with their trucks would be an attractive acquisition. target. Probably won’t happen but it would be interesting.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “would have devastating consequences on manufacturers in America and on American consumers.”

    Methinks losing all of those jobs in the first place was pretty devastating.

    Eat me Jay.

  • avatar
    IBx1

    They made their beds, now they can lie in them.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    As usual, Trump is fighting. Thank God.

    It is stunning that the enforcement of our immigration laws is so controversial. After all, they were passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President. Every single one of them. Many people who are now opposed to enforcing them used to be in favor of them.

    It is interesting how corrupting money and the lust for power can be when you are an ideologue or a plutocrat. The Dems are shameless in their quest for a permanent majority by whatever means necessary and many Repubs are sneaky little bast*rds working for the Chamber of Commerce cheap labor lobby.

    Thank God we have Trump to fight for ordinary American citizens. Illegal immigration is the issue, more than any other, that is responsible for his election. The more the leftists and their sleazy “conservative” covert allies fight Trump on illegal immigration, the stronger he gets.

    Fortunately, a significant majority of the American people oppose illegal immigration. This issue is not a winner for the “Orange Man Bad” NPC crowd.

    Hopefully, the tariff money will pay for the wall, and Trump can check off another promise kept.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      If you’re serious about addressing the problem, you don’t spend years on a process of land acquisition, grading, and wall-building. You draft 1000 judges to adjudicate asylum cases, because that’s what the issue is now. It’s not workers sneaking across the border to evade detection. It’s people, often families, voluntarily turning themselves in to plead their asylum case.

      Mexico can’t “do something” about THAT problem because people have a right under international law to seek asylum. About all they can do is agree to host people in Mexico (instead of the US) while they wait for their case to be adjudicated, and it appears they have already done that, so…this whole enforcement-or-tariffs thing is 99.9% political BS for Trump’s domestic audience.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Every time I think we’ve hit the bottom of the barrel around here you guys go find a new and deeper barrel.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    I am not a Trump supporter (surprise), however I do agree that national borders should be ‘secure’, and that first world, democratic nations should not enter into ‘free trade’ agreements with autocracies, dictatorships and 3rd world nations.

    However corporations have no loyalty to a nation. Their sole loyalty is to profit. So the corporations will always lobby to increase their profitability. Marx predicted globalization and free trade over 150 years ago. And unfortunately corporations have the funds to ‘influence’ politicians. And thanks to lobby groups including the NRA, this will not end.

    Tariffs do cost the consumer, not the nation facing tariffs. Western Canadians denounced the tariffs that Canada had for over a century because they believed/knew that these tariffs meant they paid more for finished goods, and favoured Eastern Canadian manufacturers.

    If the USA wished to ‘secure’ it southern border it needs to enact some programs that the POTUS has not mentioned:
    1) Decriminalize cannabis and possibly other drugs, thus taking them out of the control of gangs/cartels.
    2) Incarcerate anyone found guilty of employing illegals. No exceptions. In 2005 this would have meant the senior executives of Wal-Mart which instead paid an $11 million fine for employing hundreds of ‘illegal immigrants’ as night cleaners.
    3) Assist Mexico in securing its own southern border. Thus preventing the influx of refugees from Central America.
    4) Stop the posturing and preening and once again become a trusted ally/partner with other ‘western’ style democracies. This will allow a united front against Chinese economic aggression.
    5) Help to reduce/end the dependency on petroleum. This will curtail the income flowing into the Middle East and therefore reduce the funding for radical Islamization.
    6) Build better vehicles in North America. It has been demonstrated that unionized North American workers can do a good job building reliable vehicles, in a cost effective manner if given properly designed and engineered vehicles. Oshawa won multiple quality awards yet those workers are still losing their jobs.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • indi500fan: And with a first winter now In the books, Tesla 3 has displaced Mazda as corrosion queen of the salt belt.
  • onyxtape: Tie between the Acura SLX (rebadged Isuzu) and the Infiniti QX4. Not so much for the design but for the...
  • Middle-Aged (Ex-Miata) Man: The twist-dial transmission selector didn’t bother me on the 300 Limited (then the...
  • sckid213: I’ve seen a grand total of two Envisions here in Los Angeles. Both were retail models and not...
  • gtem: There haven’t been many horror stories with LX cars since their inception… and the Mercedes-related...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States