• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

brihard said:
“Recognize” meaning what?
Click to expand...
I'm sptiballing here, but an example would be that the US does not recognize Canadian record suspensions (formerly pardons) and will still require persons seeking entry with certain criminal convictions to apply for and be granted an entry waiver.

As she holds UK and French citizenship, she may be able to enter the UK or France by right, unless either country revokes her citizenship.
 
Haggis said:
I'm sptiballing here, but an example would be that the US does not recognize Canadian record suspensions (formerly pardons) and will still require persons seeking entry with certain criminal convictions to apply for and be granted an entry waiver.

As she holds UK and French citizenship, she may be able to enter the UK or France by right, unless either country revokes her citizenship.
Click to expand...
Yeah, zi was thinking from an immigration standpoint it probably doesn’t ter.
 
Haggis said:
I'm sptiballing here, but an example would be that the US does not recognize Canadian record suspensions (formerly pardons) and will still require persons seeking entry with certain criminal convictions to apply for and be granted an entry waiver.

As she holds UK and French citizenship, she may be able to enter the UK or France by right, unless either country revokes her citizenship.
Click to expand...
Fairly certain, thanks to her father, she has the right/ability to have Israeli citizenship as well.
 
This article is an important read to understand where things are with Trump, with tariffs and a possible good reason why Carney and team are not sweating right about now.


How Trump’s $150 billion tariff brag could backfire​

A court could rule the administration has to repay tariff revenue, which would undercut one of the president’s central selling points for its sweeping trade policie

Some key pieces from the article:

1) Trump’s own Justice Department has acknowledged in legal briefs filed with a U.S. Court of Appeals in recent months that if the tariffs were ruled unlawful, importers would be entitled to refunds,

2) Perhaps more damaging for the president, it would also undercut one of the core arguments he’s made to justify his trade agenda: that his tariffs are bringing in unprecedented revenue that can help pay for his tax cuts and, one day, could replace the income tax altogether.

3) already alarming some Trump allies who strongly support his tariff policies, but also are pessimistic that the duties the administration imposed under emergency law will survive the Supreme Court.

4) “Two separate courts have already ruled strongly against them, so the idea that this is a sure thing doesn’t hold up,” said a person close to the White House. “The odds of this going against them are way higher than 50-50.”

5) trade experts interviewed for this article didn’t rule out the possibility that the court could order some form of repayment. While the lawsuit only seeks repayment of tariffs collected from the plaintiffs, five experts interviewed for this article said a ruling granting those damages would likely prompt a wave of similar legal challenges from other businesses and industry groups seeking reimbursement.

6) And the administration has said clearly in court that if the tariffs are ruled illegal, they’ll pay the money back, with interest. So they’re not fighting the fact that the duties would have to be returned.”
 
Haggis said:
But unless she actually holds it, the "right/ability" to do so means nothing. She's still a foreign national.
Click to expand...
Mind you, if she was deported to Israel, she’d be far from the first crew criminal kicked out of the US to not quite the right spot these days.
 
Czech_pivo said:
This article is an important read to understand where things are with Trump, with tariffs and a possible good reason why Carney and team are not sweating right about now.


How Trump’s $150 billion tariff brag could backfire​

A court could rule the administration has to repay tariff revenue, which would undercut one of the president’s central selling points for its sweeping trade policie

Some key pieces from the article:

1) Trump’s own Justice Department has acknowledged in legal briefs filed with a U.S. Court of Appeals in recent months that if the tariffs were ruled unlawful, importers would be entitled to refunds,

2) Perhaps more damaging for the president, it would also undercut one of the core arguments he’s made to justify his trade agenda: that his tariffs are bringing in unprecedented revenue that can help pay for his tax cuts and, one day, could replace the income tax altogether.

3) already alarming some Trump allies who strongly support his tariff policies, but also are pessimistic that the duties the administration imposed under emergency law will survive the Supreme Court.

4) “Two separate courts have already ruled strongly against them, so the idea that this is a sure thing doesn’t hold up,” said a person close to the White House. “The odds of this going against them are way higher than 50-50.”

5) trade experts interviewed for this article didn’t rule out the possibility that the court could order some form of repayment. While the lawsuit only seeks repayment of tariffs collected from the plaintiffs, five experts interviewed for this article said a ruling granting those damages would likely prompt a wave of similar legal challenges from other businesses and industry groups seeking reimbursement.

6) And the administration has said clearly in court that if the tariffs are ruled illegal, they’ll pay the money back, with interest. So they’re not fighting the fact that the duties would have to be returned.”
Click to expand...

So then, patience.
 
PMedMoe said:
Smithsonian will again include Trump in impeachment exhibit in 'coming weeks'
Click to expand...
That reads like “we reviewed the content, the temporary placard was crap, we’re making a new permanent one”. See if it sticks I guess.

Czech_pivo said:
2) Perhaps more damaging for the president, it would also undercut one of the core arguments he’s made to justify his trade agenda: that his tariffs are bringing in unprecedented revenue that can help pay for his tax cuts and, one day, could replace the income tax altogether.
Click to expand...
So, this is one of the most annoying and disingenuous things.

The tariffs are taxes on American importers and consumers. Paying for tax cuts with a hike in a different tax isn't a net reduction in taxes.
 
brihard said:
The tariffs are taxes on American importers and consumers. Paying for tax cuts with a hike in a different tax isn't a net reduction in taxes.
Click to expand...
True, but tariffs bring in revenue AND can be blamed on “those people” - in the event a regime, hypothetically of course, wanted to create an enemy to unite the masses and distract from domestic fuckery. Handy that, no?
 
Remius said:
So then, patience.
Click to expand...
It sure seems like it.
Sit quietly, don't say anything to upset the applecart and let things play out naturally.
But, if it does go down like this, what has to be remembered that CUSMA dies a natural death in July of 2026 - and just about anything can happen then.
 
Czech_pivo said:
It sure seems like it.
Sit quietly, don't say anything to upset the applecart and let things play out naturally.
But, if it does go down like this, what has to be remembered that CUSMA dies a natural death in July of 2026 - and just about anything can happen then.
Click to expand...
2026 is the first mandatory review of CUSMA by the signatory nations. The trade agreement is currently set to expire in 2036. If there is a written agreement by all three parties to extend the treaty at the review the expiration date will be extended another 16 years to 2052.

If the three nations fail to agree in writing to extend the agreement in July 2026 then the expiration date of the agreement remains 2036. There will then be annual reviews thereafter where the parties have another opportunity to extend the agreement to 2052.

So, just because there is not agreement to extend the agreement to 2052 next July CUSMA will still remain in effect until 2036. IF the US (or Canada or Mexico) were to wish to unilaterally leave the agreement before 2036 they would have to indicate their withdrawal in writing and they would exit the agreement 6 months later. Apparently however there may be some statutory details in the enabling legislation in the US that may require Congressional approval to withdraw from the agreement.

There are lots of States that may not want to see the US unilaterally withdraw from CUSMA so Trump may want to walk a more narrow path by refusing to extend CUSMA next July and use the pressure of that to push for some modifications to the agreement to make it more favourable to the US in return for an extension.

Unilateral withdrawal by the US might cause more problems that would be worth it to the Trump administration...especially if the impacts of tariffs begin to bite in advance of the 2026 midterm elections.
 
GR66 said:
2026 is the first mandatory review of CUSMA by the signatory nations. The trade agreement is currently set to expire in 2036. If there is a written agreement by all three parties to extend the treaty at the review the expiration date will be extended another 16 years to 2052.

If the three nations fail to agree in writing to extend the agreement in July 2026 then the expiration date of the agreement remains 2036. There will then be annual reviews thereafter where the parties have another opportunity to extend the agreement to 2052.

So, just because there is not agreement to extend the agreement to 2052 next July CUSMA will still remain in effect until 2036. IF the US (or Canada or Mexico) were to wish to unilaterally leave the agreement before 2036 they would have to indicate their withdrawal in writing and they would exit the agreement 6 months later. Apparently however there may be some statutory details in the enabling legislation in the US that may require Congressional approval to withdraw from the agreement.

There are lots of States that may not want to see the US unilaterally withdraw from CUSMA so Trump may want to walk a more narrow path by refusing to extend CUSMA next July and use the pressure of that to push for some modifications to the agreement to make it more favourable to the US in return for an extension.

Unilateral withdrawal by the US might cause more problems that would be worth it to the Trump administration...especially if the impacts of tariffs begin to bite in advance of the 2026 midterm elections.
Click to expand...

Awesome information and details - much appreciated.
Have to wonder why this sort of detailed analysis, information is NOT making its way through any of the media in Canada and/or the US.

If the US were to try and unilaterally try to exit the agreement, it wouldn't be able to do so until Jan of 2027 - 6 months after the timeline of July 2026 - which would be AFTER the mid-term elections of 2026.

If The Donald loses the court cases before it, including the Supreme Court possible rulings AND they have to repay the illegally obtained tariffs back to those they collected it from, he make have painted himself into a corner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top