Thread: MEXICO TO IMPOSE TRADE SANCTIONS ON U.S.

Lou Dobbs CNN 11-28-07

"Mexican government leaders and politicians led by an illegal alien deported from the United States are now intensifying their criticism of U.S. government efforts to enforce our immigration laws. Mexico's president, Felipe Calderon, has gone so far as to say that Mexican citizens living in the United States are being used as, quote, "symbolic hostages in the U.S. presidential race". Calderon also criticized what he called in his words, the quote, "growing harassment and persecution of Mexican citizens in the United States". Casey Wian has our report.

CASEY WIAN, voice-over: She's back. Deported former illegal alien Elvira Arellano sat in front of the U.S. embassy in Mexico City on the tenth day of a hunger strike. She is demanding amnesty for the estimated six million Mexicans living illegally in the United States.

ELVIRA ARELLANO, MEXICAN DEPORTEE: Today I decided to sit in front of the embassy to protest peacefully against the raids deportation and separation of families, to demand legalization for a migrant community who live in the United States.

WIAN: Mexican politicians and activists are growing more vocal in their criticism of U.S. efforts to enforce immigration laws. Earlier this month, Arellano addressed representatives of Mexican citizens in the United States meeting in Mexico City. They denounced deportations and the growing number of state and local laws seeking to crack down on illegal immigration. The participants proposed reserving a dozen seats in the Mexican parliament for migrants living abroad. Some even demanded a trade embargo against the United States until deportation ceased.

GEORGE GRAYSON, COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY: The political class speaks with one voice and that is that Mexicans have a God given right to come to the United States, that they're doing Americans and specifically the American economy a favor.

WIAN: President Felipe Calderon who has gone further than his predecessors in acknowledging Mexico's responsibility for illegal immigration and failed border security seems to be returning to the harsh rhetoric of the past. His government this month called the construction of more border-fencing medieval and Calderon himself accused U.S. presidential candidates of holding Mexicans in the United States as symbolic hostages, a group that included Arellano until she was deported this past August after leaving her church sanctuary in Chicago. She vows to continue her hunger strike until December 12th, the day Mexico celebrates the feast of

WIAN: As for the threat of a trade embargo, it would undoubtedly do more harm to Mexico's economy than to the United States. We asked one supporter of the trade embargo to defend the idea and he said it would be useful as leverage --

DOBBS: Well that's simply idiotic. We have a $70 billion trade deficit with Mexico. Mexican citizens in this country send $25 billion a year back to Mexico for their families there and we're buying about 25 -- between 25 and $45 billion worth of illegal drugs from Mexico. It's still the principal source of methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin and marijuana into this country. These idiots really think that they would be in some way harming the United States if they actually obeyed the law and ended this highly disadvantageous relationship with the United States?

WIAN: They seem to think so. Some of the politicians and supporters of illegal aliens in the United States who are in Mexico, you know it's $180 billion in exports from Mexico to the United States. We represent about 85 percent of their exports. Without us, their economy would really be in bad shape, even worse than it is now, so we can't imagine that these threats will come to any kind of fruition. There is a lot of saber rattling. We're expecting to hear more of that in the future.

DOBBS: What is interesting to me and I think to millions of Americans, would be my guess, Casey, is that the United States government in the form of either the president of the United States when George W. Bush, neither the leaders of the Republican Party or Democratic Party or the Senate majority leader or the House speaker or any one of the presidential candidates is responding to this kind of insulting rhetoric from the government of Mexico and its leading politicians.

And that in itself is disgusting and it suggests a paternalism toward Mexico that is frankly I think that could be construed as racist because it is not one in which we see an equal partner."

I think it's about time to jump ship on the WTO

Billions in Sanctions Authorized For March 1 Unless Congress Implements WTO-Ordered Change to U.S. Tax Policy; Retaliation Looms in Other WTO Rulings Against U.S. Laws

Billions in Sanctions Authorized for March 1 Unless Congress Implements WTO-Ordered Change to U.S. Tax Policy; Retaliation Looms in Other WTO Rulings Against U.S. Laws

When the GATT Uruguay Round was being negotiated in the early 1990s, many in the U.S. only saw the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its powerful new dispute settlement process as a venue for the U.S. to bring challenges against other nations. But, the growing number of WTO rulings against an array of U.S. laws – including some recent high-profile cases – has underscored what critics warned a decade ago: the WTO impedes the ability of America’s democratically-elected representatives to determine U.S. policy.

To date, the U.S. has lost more than 80% of all WTO complaints brought against its laws. Challenges against U.S. trade safeguards law at the WTO have been particularly frequent and successful. Of the 11 completed antidumping (AD)/ countervailing duty (CVD)/ surge protection cases against the U.S., the U.S. has won only two. U.S. policies ranging from tax to antidumping measures and clean air to sea turtle protections have been labeled illegal by WTO dispute settlement panels, and unfortunately the U.S. has changed domestic policies to conform to many of these rulings.

Most recently, President Bush eliminated the Section 201 safeguards for steel– just days before $2 billion of WTO-authorized trade sanctions were to kick in. That the WTO could successfully coerce the President to reverse a policy with huge consequences for a vital sector of our economy, as well as the livelihoods of thousands of hardworking citizens, should remove all doubts about the power of the WTO. The fact that many analysts interpreted the steel Section 201 tariffs as vital to President’s Bush’s reelection prospects in key swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia makes the Bush Administration’s compliance with the WTO’s decision all the more remarkable – putting to rest the canard often repeated by WTO defenders that the body is powerless to force countries obey its directives.

[b]As the adverse rulings pile up, many in Congress, the media and think tanks who supported the WTO’s establishment are beginning to sound like its critics: “Once tax policy is on the table, there's no end to what the WTO might meddle inâ€

Originally Posted by bordersoldier

This is all I could find right now but there is supposed to be another article out today that says Calderon is imposing sanctions because we have not given up our sovereignty. I can't be sure yet. Still looking.


http://www.breakingnewsenglish.com/0411 ... tsUSA.html

Saturday November 27
Intermediate +

BNE: The World Trade Organization (WTO) yesterday approved a request from the European Union, Japan, Canada, Brazil, India, South Korea and Mexico to impose sanctions on American products. This is in retaliation for damages incurred to industries from those countries due to the US antidumping law known as the Byrd Amendment. This law was ruled illegal by the WTO two years ago, but Washington has continually ignored international requests to comply with the ruling.

The law protects American companies from foreign imports, which are sold in America at prices less than those in their country of manufacture. For example, apples produced and sold in Mexico for $1 apiece are then sold in the USA for 80 cents. US companies receive compensation from the antidumping import taxes levied on the foreign rivals’ goods in an attempt to keep the playing field level for domestic producers. Products to be affected range from live pigs to peanut butter to steel bars.

The countries are ready to hit the United States with up to 150 million US dollars in sanctions early next year if Washington doesn't comply and quickly abolish the Byrd amendment. Although this amount is a drop in the ocean, the WTO action is significant as it involves several countries taking action against America. This could start a trend among countries tired of unilateral American trade practices, and view the USA as an international trade bully.

This is from November 27
2004

ALL this and these idiots STILL want to sign the LOST treaty????!!! Are they insane???

I may be wrong but I don't think that the U.S. has signed any trade treaty yet that has actually been a plus for this nation.It seems that we have a deficit to and owe every country on earth because of us buying more than we ever ship to them.I guess we really are a glutton for punishment,thanks to our Congress that continues these agreements that sends our grandchildren and their children's children deeper into debt.

Funny......i find myself actually becoming an isolationist as of late. Whats the point of having trade treaties that screw america royally

Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7

I think it's about time to jump ship on the WTO

Look, I think anti-dumping laws are a bad idea-the best example of this is how the steel industry actually lost jobs when we imposed quotas on Japanese steel. But there's no reason that an unelected international organization should be able to dictate our trade policy. It's unconstitutional and an encroachment upon our sovereignity.

This is all I could find right now but there is supposed to be another article out today that says Calderon is imposing sanctions because we have not given up our sovereignty. I can't be sure yet. Still looking.










Thank you for posting bordersoldier.

But, I'm afraid I'm confused. The article itself is an older one and I've seen nor heard anything about Calderon imposing sanctions because we won't give up our sovereignty.

It doesn't seem to make much sense that he would demand surrender to his country.....which would be considered a threat of war.....with such a minor ultimatum as trade sanctions as the big "or else"

Originally Posted by azwreath

This is all I could find right now but there is supposed to be another article out today that says Calderon is imposing sanctions because we have not given up our sovereignty. I can't be sure yet. Still looking.










Thank you for posting bordersoldier.

But, I'm afraid I'm confused. The article itself is an older one and I've seen nor heard anything about Calderon imposing sanctions because we won't give up our sovereignty.

It doesn't seem to make much sense that he would demand surrender to his country.....which would be considered a threat of war.....with such a minor ultimatum as trade sanctions as the big "or else"

If we dont take his people we dont get his apples

Big deal He can
Keep his rotton apples...