monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

I always believed charity starts at home; in that sense, raising tariffs on Mexico will mean a tax hike for consumers at home on Mexican goods. A lose/lose for both sides. There are a lot of produce from Mexico in everyday stores, including small towns. Personally I wish there was a friendlier relationship with our border countries instead of the hostile one Trump seems intent on making. Where meetings can occur to work out differences and problems in both countries.

In any event other than puppy dog Graham who can't stand on his own feet but must forever have a stronger dog to follow after, it seems there are quite a few republicans getting fed up with Trump regarding Tariffs and Trade if nothing else.

You don't think many Mexicans will welcome Trump's use of tariffs to stimulate more job-creation locally?

Stores and businesses north of the border don't have to raise prices to cover the tariffs, just as sellers in Mexico don't have to. Of course everyone wants to try to pass on cost-increases such as tariffs or other taxes, but the market doesn't have to allow them to.

Usually what happens is people at home suffer in the form of taxes on products. Which means Americans would buy less Mexican products. Which would mean Mexico would lose the profits from Americans buying their products. I doubt the market is not going to allow them to raise taxes on products. I wouldn't even pretend as to how that would be done.

And why would Tariffs suddenly create a booming Mexican economy where the local can afford to buy as much products as Americans do? What is stopping them now from buying products from their own Mexican produce plants, farms and factories? They make money from the US, I don't see why tariffs on their products they sell to the US would help Mexico in any way create local money making jobs. Explain.

InfraBlue wrote:

livinglava wrote:

Do you realize the practical effect of raising tariffs as a response to migration will be for Mexican employers to create jobs in order to get the tariffs lowered?

Are you against stimulating job-creation in Mexico for some reason?

US employers could just as well create jobs.

Are you against job-creation in the US for some reason?

What does that have to do with what I said about tariffs stimulating job-creation in Mexico?

If you want to talk about job-creation in the US, why don't you just do that separately instead of obfuscating the tariffs=jobs in Mexico point?

Julian Assange has suffered "prolonged exposure to psychological torture", the UN's torture expert has said.

Nils Melzer urged Britain not to extradite the Wikileaks founder, warning that his human rights would be violated and that he is not fit to stand trial.

He also accused "several democratic states" of a "concerted effort to break [Assange's] will".

But the UK Foreign Secretary said Assange "chose to hide" from justice.

In a tweet Jeremy Hunt said the Mr Melzer "should allow British courts to make their judgements without his interference or inflammatory accusations".

A justice ministry spokesperson also said the UK did not participate in torture, and that the government disagreed with a number of Mr Melzer's findings. Judges were independent of the government and anyone convicted had the right to appeal, the spokesman added.

But Mr Melzer responded to Mr Hunt's tweet, saying Assange was "about as 'free to leave' as someone sitting on a rubberboat in a sharkpool".

Assange, 47, is fighting extradition to the US over charges related to leaking government secrets.

He sought political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden on a rape allegation he has repeatedly denied. He stayed until his arrest earlier this year.

Earlier this month, Swedish prosecutors reopened their investigation into rape allegations against Assange.

Mr Melzer, who met Assange earlier in May, told the Washington Post that he was initially reluctant to get involved in the case, as he is not a fan of Wikileaks and considered its founder to be a bad actor.

The UN's special rapporteur on torture said that Assange had been subjected to sustained collective persecution - including threatening statements and incitement to violence against him.

"I've worked in many areas of war in my life, in situations of violence, and I've talked to victims of persecution around the world and I've seen very serious atrocities," Mr Melzer told the BBC.

"But [what] I have never seen is that a single person has been deliberately isolated and, I would say, persecuted - not prosecuted, but persecuted - by several democratic states in a concerted effort to eventually break his will."

He added that he believes Assange "has a very strong case, and a very reasonable fear, that if he gets extradited to the Unites States he has no chance to get a fair trial with the level of public and official prejudice that exists there for him".

Mr Melzer added that, because of his treatment, his health was at serious risk.

"We could see that Assange showed all the symptoms that are typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture," he said.

Assange, he said, needs access to a psychiatrist who is "not part of the prison service - someone he can fully trust" - to avoid his health deteriorating further.

Assange is currently serving a 50-week sentence in Belmarsh Prison in south east London for bail violations.

He had been due to appear at a hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday - the second in his extradition case. However, his lawyer Gareth Peirce said that he was "not very well".

A spokesman for Wikileaks later said that he had been moved to the medical ward in jail, adding that he had "dramatically lost weight" while in prison.

"Defence lawyer for Assange, Per Samuelson, said that Julian Assange's health state last Friday was such 'that it was not possible to conduct a normal conversation with him'," he added.

The US Justice Department has charged Assange with receiving and publishing thousands of classified documents linked to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The US wants the UK to extradite him, but Assange has formally refused consent.

Stores and businesses north of the border don't have to raise prices to cover the tariffs, just as sellers in Mexico don't have to. Of course everyone wants to try to pass on cost-increases such as tariffs or other taxes, but the market doesn't have to allow them to.

The US-led coalition against the Islamic State (IS) group says it has unintentionally killed more than 1,300 civilians in Iraq and Syria since 2014.

In a statement, the coalition said it had carried out 34,502 strikes since its air campaign against IS began there nearly five years ago.

A UK-based monitoring group says the true toll is much higher, estimating up to nearly 13,000 civilian fatalities.

The US-led action began after IS took over huge areas of territory.

It imposed brutal rule over millions of people who fell under its control and has carried out or inspired deadly attacks around the world.

The latest figure provided by the coalition is slightly higher than its previous admission eight months ago of 1,100 civilian deaths. It says it is still assessing 111 more possible cases of civilian fatalities.

The latest acknowledgement stands in stark contrast to the claims of human rights and monitoring groups, which say the actual death toll is many times higher.

Amnesty International's senior crisis response advisor Donatella Rovera accused the US-led coalition of remaining "deeply in denial" about the true scale.

"Today's acknowledgement of further civilian deaths underscores the urgent need for thorough, independent investigations that can uncover the true scale of civilian casualties caused by coalition strikes, examine whether each attack complied with international humanitarian law and provide full reparation to victims," she said.

Last month, an investigation by activists concluded that more than 1,600 civilians were killed in coalition attacks on the Syrian city of Raqqa alone during a five-month campaign to oust IS in 2017.

Raqqa had been the de facto capital of the jihadists' self-proclaimed "caliphate".

livinglava wrote:

Stores and businesses north of the border don't have to raise prices to cover the tariffs, just as sellers in Mexico don't have to. Of course everyone wants to try to pass on cost-increases such as tariffs or other taxes, but the market doesn't have to allow them to.

So, according to your economic model, who pays for the tariffs?

it has unintentionally killed more than 1,300 civilians in Iraq and Syria since 2014.

examine whether each attack complied with international humanitarian law and provide full reparation to victims," she said.

International humanitarian law does not exist.

You are correct. However there is no enforcement mechanism for these laws., apart from the censure of other nations, and, as history reveals, that is, at best, only occasionally effective.

The Law of Geneva and The Law of The Hague to exist or not.

Like you have been told, existence and enforcement are two totally different things.

You might be better educated about such.

If/when businesses south of the border hire/pay migrants to not migrate, they pay the tariffs to the (former) migrants they hire.