{"id":14339,"date":"2024-07-29T19:08:29","date_gmt":"2024-07-29T19:08:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=14339"},"modified":"2024-07-29T19:08:30","modified_gmt":"2024-07-29T19:08:30","slug":"trump-proposed-bombing-mexico-and-it-somehow-wasnt-a-big-story","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=14339","title":{"rendered":"Trump proposed bombing Mexico and it somehow wasn\u2019t a big story"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

“Donald Trump went on national TV last week and proposed bombing Mexico<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Asked by Fox News\u2019s Jesse Watters if he\u2019d consider strikes against drug cartels operating in the country, Trump said yes \u2014 and framed his answer as a threat against the Mexican government. \u201cMexico\u2019s gonna have to straighten it out really fast, or the answer is absolutely,\u201d the former president said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is not a one-off answer to a stray question. Trump suggested firing missiles at Mexico during his presidency<\/a>, asked advisers for a \u201cbattle plan<\/a>\u201d against the cartels last year, and recently proposed sending special operators to assassinate drug kingpins<\/a>. The idea of war in Mexico is popular among the Republican elite<\/a>; a Trump-aligned think tank even drew up a broad-strokes plan<\/a> for how such a war might work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is every reason to take Trump\u2019s proposal seriously. Presidents tend to at least try to deliver on campaign promises, and they have nearly unlimited war-making power nowadays. As unthinkable as it may sound, there is a reasonable chance the United States will be at war on its southern border in the coming years if Donald Trump returns to office.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“This is part of a bigger pattern. If you actually look at Trump\u2019s policy agenda, he\u2019s called for some wild stuff: policies so extreme that, had they been proposed prior to 2016, would have defined the entire course of the campaign. Today, a few get some coverage, but mostly feel like sideshows \u2014 with policy as a category taking a backseat to personality and polling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recently, the lack of policy focus is partly due to a remarkably chaotic stretch of American political life. One candidate, the incumbent president, bungled his debate performance so badly that his party replaced him with his vice president. The other almost got killed on national television by a would-be assassin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But even in more normal times this is a general problem with the media: Policy is technical and boring, while horse-race reporting is exciting and easier for audiences to grasp.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Elements of Trump\u2019s persona also make policy reporting a lot tougher. The combination of habitual lying, flip-flopping, and personal disinterest in detail can make it tough to know what\u2019s an actual proposal and what\u2019s something he said just for the hell of it.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Before I started writing this story, I asked my colleagues at Vox what stood out as Trump\u2019s signature policy proposals in this election \u2014 the equivalent of \u201cBuild the Wall\u201d in 2016. We came up with two big answers: Trump\u2019s proposal for a general 10 percent tariff and his plan for \u201cthe largest deportation in American history.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each of these policies is genuinely extreme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A 10 percent blanket tariff isn\u2019t just putting a tax on specific imports to protect a particular industry, or to retaliate against a country like China engaging in unfair trade practices. It\u2019s a blanket attempt to make all imports from every country, including from neighbors like Canada and allies like the European Union, 10 percent more expensive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a radical shift from the way that trade policy typically works in the United States \u2014 one with huge and predictably negative implications for US consumers and the economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tariffs mean that people will either buy American-made goods that cost more than their current foreign competitors, or they will keep buying foreign-made goods at a 10 percent markup<\/a>. That\u2019s inflation basically by definition: an odd proposal for a candidate running against inflation as his central issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The center-right Tax Foundation<\/a> estimates that the tariffs would shave nearly 1 percent off of US GDP growth annually, costing roughly 684,000 jobs. This estimate did not take into account retaliation from other countries, who almost certainly would impose their own tariffs on American goods in response. A second estimate, from the centrist Peterson Institute, finds that every group of Americans \u2014 from the poorest to the wealthiest \u2014 would see drops in their annual income<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neither of these estimates takes into account the all-but-certain retaliation from the affected countries, especially China (who Trump wants to hit with a special 60 percent across-the-board tariff).” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“No one is exactly sure how many people are going to be targeted for deportations: Trump never sets a specific target, but often implies he\u2019s going to deport every undocumented immigrant in the United States (there are currently around 11 million<\/a>). A group of four NBC reporters tried to figure out how deporting so many people was supposed to work<\/a>, and ended up concluding that it was such a break with the way immigration enforcement typically works that it was near-impossible to grasp the scope of the effort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Typically, police don\u2019t go out looking for undocumented migrants currently residing in the United States. They find them by accident, during a traffic stop or criminal arrest, and then discover that they are undocumented and notify ICE to begin deportation. Targeted enforcement raids happen, but they\u2019re comparatively rare and make up only a fraction of annual deportations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Trump\u2019s \u201cmass deportation\u201d policy to work, he would need to devote extraordinary resources \u2014 state, federal, and local \u2014 to finding and apprehending undocumented immigrants. Once found, they still pose a massive logistical challenge: current law does not allow ICE to deport longstanding US residents without a hearing (or the migrant\u2019s consent), posing a huge burden on the legal system. The government would also need to figure out the travel logistics for deportation, including negotiating with home countries that might not be very happy to receive large numbers of functional refugees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During all of this, the US government would need to house millions of people \u2014 which ICE currently lacks the capacity to do. Hence the now-infamous Trump proposals for keeping detained immigrants in camps<\/a>: there\u2019s literally nowhere else to put them while they await deportation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of this is not only a human rights disaster, but an economic and law enforcement one. The cost of devoting police and judicial resources to this task, in terms of trade-offs with addressing actual crime, would be significant. So too would be the financial cost of building immigrant camps and providing them with food and medical care.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Removing so many people from the workforce would also be inflationary, far outweighing any (questionable) increase in wages for native-born workers. One estimate<\/a> suggests that, all told, mass deportations would cost the American economy $4.7 trillion over a 10-year period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The point, in short, is that Trump is proposing sweeping changes to the way the US economy and legal system operates \u2014 ones with consequences for every American \u2014 and we\u2019re barely even talking about what they would mean.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“there\u2019s a difference between Trump\u2019s random utterances, or what he might do about some obscure policy issue, and his consistent instincts on the issues central to his political identity \u2014 like trade and the southern border. And there, he could not be clearer: across-the-board tariff, mass deportation, and waging war on the drug cartels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even if we set aside everything else we know (or think we know) about what Trump would do, these three items alone would have the potential to transform life in America as we know it. It\u2019s time to start covering Trump like he means what he says.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/policy\/363146\/trump-policy-war-mexico-trade-deportation-border<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Donald Trump went on national TV last week and proposed bombing Mexico.
\nAsked by Fox News\u2019s Jesse Watters if he\u2019d consider strikes against drug cartels operating in the country, Trump said yes \u2014 and framed his answer as a threat against the Mexican government. \u201cMexico\u2019s gonna have to straighten it out really fast, or the answer is absolutely,\u201d the former president said.<\/p>\n

This is not a one-off answer to a stray question. Trump suggested firing missiles at Mexico during his presidency, asked advisers for a \u201cbattle plan\u201d against the cartels last year, and recently proposed sending special operators to assassinate drug kingpins. The idea of war in Mexico is popular among the Republican elite; a Trump-aligned think tank even drew up a broad-strokes plan for how such a war might work.<\/p>\n

There is every reason to take Trump\u2019s proposal seriously. Presidents tend to at least try to deliver on campaign promises, and they have nearly unlimited war-making power nowadays. As unthinkable as it may sound, there is a reasonable chance the United States will be at war on its southern border in the coming years if Donald Trump returns to office.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“This is part of a bigger pattern. If you actually look at Trump\u2019s policy agenda, he\u2019s called for some wild stuff: policies so extreme that, had they been proposed prior to 2016, would have defined the entire course of the campaign. Today, a few get some coverage, but mostly feel like sideshows \u2014 with policy as a category taking a backseat to personality and polling.<\/p>\n

Recently, the lack of policy focus is partly due to a remarkably chaotic stretch of American political life. One candidate, the incumbent president, bungled his debate performance so badly that his party replaced him with his vice president. The other almost got killed on national television by a would-be assassin.<\/p>\n

But even in more normal times this is a general problem with the media: Policy is technical and boring, while horse-race reporting is exciting and easier for audiences to grasp.<\/p>\n

Elements of Trump\u2019s persona also make policy reporting a lot tougher. The combination of habitual lying, flip-flopping, and personal disinterest in detail can make it tough to know what\u2019s an actual proposal and what\u2019s something he said just for the hell of it.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“Before I started writing this story, I asked my colleagues at Vox what stood out as Trump\u2019s signature policy proposals in this election \u2014 the equivalent of \u201cBuild the Wall\u201d in 2016. We came up with two big answers: Trump\u2019s proposal for a general 10 percent tariff and his plan for \u201cthe largest deportation in American history.\u201d<\/p>\n

Each of these policies is genuinely extreme.<\/p>\n

A 10 percent blanket tariff isn\u2019t just putting a tax on specific imports to protect a particular industry, or to retaliate against a country like China engaging in unfair trade practices. It\u2019s a blanket attempt to make all imports from every country, including from neighbors like Canada and allies like the European Union, 10 percent more expensive.<\/p>\n

This is a radical shift from the way that trade policy typically works in the United States \u2014 one with huge and predictably negative implications for US consumers and the economy.<\/p>\n

The tariffs mean that people will either buy American-made goods that cost more than their current foreign competitors, or they will keep buying foreign-made goods at a 10 percent markup. That\u2019s inflation basically by definition: an odd proposal for a candidate running against inflation as his central issue.<\/p>\n

The center-right Tax Foundation estimates that the tariffs would shave nearly 1 percent off of US GDP growth annually, costing roughly 684,000 jobs. This estimate did not take into account retaliation from other countries, who almost certainly would impose their own tariffs on American goods in response. A second estimate, from the centrist Peterson Institute, finds that every group of Americans \u2014 from the poorest to the wealthiest \u2014 would see drops in their annual income.<\/p>\n

Neither of these estimates takes into account the all-but-certain retaliation from the affected countries, especially China (who Trump wants to hit with a special 60 percent across-the-board tariff).” <\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“No one is exactly sure how many people are going to be targeted for deportations: Trump never sets a specific target, but often implies he\u2019s going to deport every undocumented immigrant in the United States (there are currently around 11 million). A group of four NBC reporters tried to figure out how deporting so many people was supposed to work, and ended up concluding that it was such a break with the way immigration enforcement typically works that it was near-impossible to grasp the scope of the effort.<\/p>\n

Typically, police don\u2019t go out looking for undocumented migrants currently residing in the United States. They find them by accident, during a traffic stop or criminal arrest, and then discover that they are undocumented and notify ICE to begin deportation. Targeted enforcement raids happen, but they\u2019re comparatively rare and make up only a fraction of annual deportations.<\/p>\n

For Trump\u2019s \u201cmass deportation\u201d policy to work, he would need to devote extraordinary resources \u2014 state, federal, and local \u2014 to finding and apprehending undocumented immigrants. Once found, they still pose a massive logistical challenge: current law does not allow ICE to deport longstanding US residents without a hearing (or the migrant\u2019s consent), posing a huge burden on the legal system. The government would also need to figure out the travel logistics for deportation, including negotiating with home countries that might not be very happy to receive large numbers of functional refugees.<\/p>\n

During all of this, the US government would need to house millions of people \u2014 which ICE currently lacks the capacity to do. Hence the now-infamous Trump proposals for keeping detained immigrants in camps: there\u2019s literally nowhere else to put them while they await deportation.<\/p>\n

All of this is not only a human rights disaster, but an economic and law enforcement one. The cost of devoting police and judicial resources to this task, in terms of trade-offs with addressing actual crime, would be significant. So too would be the financial cost of building immigrant camps and providing them with food and medical care.<\/p>\n

Removing so many people from the workforce would also be inflationary, far outweighing any (questionable) increase in wages for native-born workers. One estimate suggests that, all told, mass deportations would cost the American economy $4.7 trillion over a 10-year period.<\/p>\n

The point, in short, is that Trump is proposing sweeping changes to the way the US economy and legal system operates \u2014 ones with consequences for every American \u2014 and we\u2019re barely even talking about what they would mean.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“there\u2019s a difference between Trump\u2019s random utterances, or what he might do about some obscure policy issue, and his consistent instincts on the issues central to his political identity \u2014 like trade and the southern border. And there, he could not be clearer: across-the-board tariff, mass deportation, and waging war on the drug cartels.<\/p>\n

Even if we set aside everything else we know (or think we know) about what Trump would do, these three items alone would have the potential to transform life in America as we know it. It\u2019s time to start covering Trump like he means what he says.”<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/policy\/363146\/trump-policy-war-mexico-trade-deportation-border<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[173,436,449,221,986,439,272,355,314,945,259,170],"class_list":["post-14339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-bomb","tag-bombs","tag-border","tag-donald-trump","tag-drug-cartels","tag-drugs","tag-foreign-affairs","tag-foreign-policy","tag-international-relations","tag-mexico","tag-military","tag-trump"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14339"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14340,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14339\/revisions\/14340"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}