In a recent announcement on November 25, president-elect Donald Trump put forth a proposal to enforce a 25 percent tariff on goods being imported from both Mexico and Canada. He declared this a necessary step until both nations could offer realistic solutions to issues of unauthorized migration and the widespread illegal trafficking of the drug fentanyl into the United States. Further in his statement, Trump also presented the possibility of an added 10 percent tariff on Chinese goods.
In reaction to this statement, Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, cautioned that implementing the tariffs would more likely result in inflation and job losses, rather than providing any real-time solutions to the issues at hand. Sheinbaum likewise hinted towards the likelihood of Mexico responding with retaliatory tariffs should this proposal come into effect.
This issue sculpted the direction of a phone call between Sheinbaum and Trump, which both leaders reported as productive, in spite of their differing afterthoughts. According to Trump’s recounting, Sheinbaum had consented to curb migration to the U.S. border. However, Sheinbaum promptly contradicted this, asserting that this was not the intended message she wished to present.
It’s crucial to recognize that migration into the United States is impacted by a variety of elements, of which a Mexico-imposed tariff is just one small part. Mexico has already been embarking on its most aggressive operations targeted at migrants and asylum seekers, tracing back to the latter half of 2023. The immediate effects have led to reduced migration, yet it’s questionable if this is a sustainable, long-term solution.
The underlying issues causing individuals to seek refuge outside their home country persist, as the United States faces a broken and bottlenecked immigration and asylum system. Despite tough measures, the smuggling networks, often fueled by governmental corruption, persistently find ways to maneuver around stringent policies. Basic crackdown programs fall short of addressing the deeper, systemic problems that incite migration; they merely postpone the inevitability of dealing with them.
The implied rationale behind Trump’s tariff proposition largely hinges on the belief that economic pressure might compel the Mexican government to take a more proactive stance on issues of drug interdiction and arrests – hallmarks of the enduring war on drugs. However, these measures have repeatedly shown to provide little benefit to American communities deeply affected by the fentanyl overdose crises.
The fundamental principles of drug prohibition, which essentially promote unauthorized drug trafficking, are not impacted by tariff threats or enforcement. Therefore, the relevance and effectiveness of such an approach is questioned.
The proposed alterations in tariff policy are likely to carry substantial economic implications for both the United States and Mexico. Tariffs tend to elevate the prices of imported goods, which by default, directly burdens the American consumer.
Simultaneously, this suggested tariff plan could potentially destabilize Mexican industry sectors that are heavily reliant on exporting goods to the United States. This could stimulate a surge in unemployment rates and similar adverse economic outcomes, pushing workers and families in Mexico to consider migration to the United States as a survival strategy.
Policies that lay emphasis on curbing migration often result in desperate migrants resorting to precarious routes and methods. This increased risk exposure frequently leads to human rights infractions such as extortion and violence, and typically escalates the activity of human smuggling.
Perpetuating these predicaments offers limited potential for enhancing bilateral relationships or addressing more pressing issues in an effective manner. The highlighted concerns of increased migration, issues related to drug abuse, and others must consider a wider perspective than just stringent policy enactment.