What Do Immigrants Owe Us?

Townhall 

We keep hearing it, over and over again, about how we Americans are somehow morally obligated to aliens – illegal or otherwise. About how we Americans are obligated to allow them into our country without our permission, and once they’re here, to not only subsidize them but to validate the garbage cultures that they came from and now insist on replanting in our sacred soil. But there’s a question that we need to start asking, particularly Republican politicians, whenever the subject of immigration arises. I don’t mean the Republican politicians who were all for illegal immigration; these are the ones who insist that we somehow owe these people “dignity,” as if it is we, and not their own actions, that have somehow deprived them of it. No, when we’re talking about immigration, we need to ask a very simple question and demand an answer.

What do immigrants owe us?

Because we don’t owe them anything. Nothing. The terrible conditions of their trash homelands are not the fault of America or Americans. It is the fault of the people who lived there, their people, not ours. And yes, I know about colonialism. We didn’t colonize most of the places these people are coming from, but even if we did, let’s be honest here. Colonization is the best thing that has happened to most of the world. Without colonization, most of them would still be living in huts, curing diseases by waving smoking twigs over the sick, and occasionally dining on one another. All you have to do to lose respect for most of the world is go there, which is why most of the people there want to go here.

So, what do immigrants owe us? And not just illegal ones. The legal ones, too, because we seem to have a problem with ingratitude on the part of losers our country, for some reason, took in. Take Ihan Omar, as her brother apparently did as his unlawfully wedded wife. She came from a dumpster country and is now intent on turning our country into a similar dumpster, all the time endlessly complaining and whining about how terrible it is. A simple “thank you” would suffice, but we’re never going to get that from her. She hates us. And she hates us in large part because our culture’s success shames her by highlighting the comparative total failure of her own. She takes it as a personal insult that Americans don’t suck, and she should.

No, demanding a little gratitude is not too much to ask. Immigrants owe us that. And there are some other things that immigrants owe us, like obeying our laws. Now, of course, illegal aliens, by definition, don’t obey our laws. They apparently don’t owe us that. We Americans owe us that. If we Americans violate our laws, the Soros prosecutors these teaming hordes of Third World peasants help elect will gladly prosecute us. But somehow, the standard got waived for them. They can ignore our laws and come here, and we’re not supposed to do anything about it because reasons, and shut up, you’re a racist, and it makes the Pope sad if you have immigration laws.

Oh, it’s not just our immigration laws that they’re ignoring. No, it’s a whole bunch of laws. Let’s start with the ones against identity theft. A huge number of illegal aliens rely on identity theft to make their money here in this country. We’re somehow supposed to just wave that off as if it doesn’t matter. But we’re also supposed to ignore their other crimes. Look at the Somali fraud in Minneapolis. But it gets worse, because some of it gets Americans hurt and killed. How many times have you seen a couple of decent Americans slain in a car crash caused by some hammered Central American who’s already had four DUIs and still hasn’t been kicked out of the country? A lot. Too many times.

Is it somehow unreasonable for us to demand that immigrants, legal and illegal, at least obey our laws? Well, apparently it is. I don’t know who agreed to waive that obligation. I certainly wasn’t consulted, because I didn’t sign up for it, and I kind of doubt you did either. But there it is. Apparently, immigrants don’t owe us respect for our laws.

Well, do they at least owe us putting their shoulders to the grindstone, and working, and supporting themselves, and doing all those great things that were always told immigrants to do? No, they don’t owe us that either—quite the opposite. We owe them a living. We owe them food and shelter and schooling and medical care and everything else. Once again, I was not consulted on this, nor were you. I thought we lived in something like a democracy, but apparently, we don’t. Apparently, you and I, citizens of the United States of America, don’t get a vote on this. We just get the check. 

How about loyalty? Can we agree that immigrants owe loyalty to this country since they’re supposedly adding to the beautiful mosaic/wonderful tapestry of America with their diversity and stuff? No, they apparently don’t owe us loyalty. They’re free to take the side of foreign countries against us. Look at all the Palesimpians and similar mutants who adore Hamas and hate America and share that bile here on our soil. Is it too much for us to expect them to take our side when they come here? Yes, apparently.

Do they have an obligation to become Americans, as opposed to what they were? When you become American, you buy into our culture and our system and our way of doing things. You don’t expect to get off the banana boat and immediately start demanding changes so that we’re more like the roiling cesspool you crawled out of. We don’t owe you changes to make you more comfortable with us; you immigrants owe us changes to make us more comfortable with you. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the proper nature of the relationship. As an immigrant, you are an applicant respectfully requesting admission to our great nation. And we are its gatekeepers, deciding whether you should be allowed in. Or at least, that’s the proper construction. The immigration hacks – who want a bunch of foreigners here both because they hate America and because they think it will add to their own political power – have somehow turned that relationship on its head. Somehow, the onus is on us to become different rather than on the newcomers to become the same. The 2024 election shows that America doesn’t buy that. And the glorious tsunami of Trump deportations is just one manifestation of that new reality.

We should deport every single illegal alien, especially the ones who have shown that they have refused to meet their obligations by ignoring our laws for decades. We keep hearing about how somebody’s been here 30 years with a deportation order, and now they’re stunned that ICE is finally acting on it. Oh no, haven’t those mean conservatives heard of immigration adverse possession/squatter rights? In fact, there was nothing to prevent them from returning home on their own once they received the deportation order; the fact that they stayed is a violation of their obligation to honor our laws. Punt them all.

Now, our new DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin got a little bit of pushback from some conservatives who were irritated by his cliché explanation that America is “a nation of immigrants.” It’s hack, one of those terms that’s supposed to end the discussion rather than promote it. Yes, a whole lot of Americans came here directly as immigrants, or are sons and daughters of immigrants. If that’s what you’re saying, yeah, that’s true, and it doesn’t mean anything as far as not expecting immigrants to meet their obligations to us. And let’s be factual – a lot of legal immigrants do meet their obligations to us. Many legal immigrants have provided valuable services and shown remarkable loyalty to this country. That is an indisputable fact, and we should be happy about that. When we get good people here who want to contribute and conform, we benefit. But that requires them to understand and fulfill their obligations to us.

Most of us have stories about immigrants who have done things the right way, who have come here and decided they owed us, not the other way around. Let’s look at my family. My father-in-law came here from Cuba and served in the United States Army, as did my brother-in-law. My wife came here from Cuba, and she waved goodbye to me, holding a kid, as I deployed for 16 months to Kosovo. They believe they owed us for the chance to become Americans, and they understood their obligation to become Americans and to serve America by honoring its laws, participating in its culture, and supporting its military. No one demanded that they get rid of some of the superficial trappings of their past; we sometimes eat arroz con pollo and black beans for dinner. But they wanted to be Americans, and are.

They, and millions of other legal immigrants, have done it the right way to our country’s indisputable benefit. But see, that’s the test. Does it benefit us? That’s the correct test in every case where an immigrant applies to join our country. What is in it for us? What do you bring to us? What are you going to do to make it worth our while to take you in? It’s not merely meeting the basic obligations, like following our laws, showing loyalty, and becoming part of our culture. Immigrants owe us value. What do you give us that we wouldn’t have otherwise? Are you a hard worker or a uniquely skilled worker? How will you personally make America better for being here? And you don’t do that by being a nagging ingrate, a communist sympathizer, or a dirtbag criminal.

What do immigrants owe us? That’s the question we need to ask whenever the subject of immigration comes up, because that’s the question that destroys the Left’s premises. Once you ask it, that resets the paradigm and correctly reframes the issue.

What do immigrants owe us? Well, a hell of a lot more than we’ve been getting.

Entertainment and podcast thread for April 23

 

blehhhh.

This Is What Democracy Looks Like and Why Our Founding Fathers Didn’t Create One

Townhall 

Virginia voted, and the Democrats treated the Republicans and Independents in the state like Bill Clinton treated so many women over the years – forcing their will on everyone else. If southern and rural Virginians didn’t want to be overpowered into submission, they shouldn’t have worn such a short skirt.

In an election decided by three points after last year’s Governor’s race was won by the Democrat by more than 15 points, Democrats switched the state’s Congressional district map from six Democrats and five Republicans to 10 Democrats. Hitler would be proud.

This is why we are a Constitutionally Limited Republic and not a democracy. Despite what everyone with a nose ring and purple hair would say, our Founding Fathers were brilliant men. They didn’t do this by accident or even luck; they weighed all the options and chose the best.

Democrats in Virginia, and across the country, have been trying to undo their brilliance since they emerged from the womb. Virginia just did some.

Before then, New York did it. The Empire State was the first shot in the redistricting wars, despite what the liberal media and Democrats (but I repeat myself) would have you believe.

A guy named Matt Forney laid out the case on Twitter, writing, “The first mid-decade redistricting of the 2020s was when New York passed a gerrymandered map in 2024. This was after they had tried to cram all the state's Republicans into four out of 26 districts only to get sued for violating the state constitution and a special master was appointed to draw fair maps. In the 2022 midterms, the extreme unpopularity of both Joe Biden and Kathy Hochul saw the Republicans gain four of New York's seats (the net change was only +3 due to New York losing a Republican district in the Buffalo suburbs). This was the best result the GOP had in the state in decades. A year later, the Democratic state government sued to replace the fair map with a slightly-less gerrymandered map and the Republicans lost three seats in 2024 despite getting roughly the same percentage of the vote.”

You can, as they say, look it up for yourself.

It wasn’t Texas; it was Democrats. It’s always Democrats.

Our government was set up so there was a place for both the people and the states in the legislative process. The House was elected by the people, and the Senate was selected by the state governments. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution – the direct election of Senators by voters in the states – fundamentally transformed our government for the worse.

Thanks to that, there were now both sides of the Legislative Branch pandering to the public. The Senate used to protect the rights of the state against federal incursion; now it demands that incursion. The rights of states are irrelevant, as are the rights of individuals to leftists. Centralized power is all that matters, and “democracy” is the way to get that.

True democracy is majority rule, on anything. No sane person would accept their rights and liberties being subjected to the will and whims of 50 percent plus one of any group of people. Even Democrats, as crazy as they are, don’t do that. How many referendums have you seen win at the ballot box, only to be enjoined almost immediately in response to a liberal lawsuit filed the second they lost?

Democrats only support democracy when they win, which is to say they don’t support democracy at all. Their leadership is evil people, not stupid ones. (Their voters, on the other hand…)

Democracy is a horrible form of government that always leads to centralized power. That’s why Democrats use it; it’s a very effective weapon. But they don’t mean it, as evidenced by when it doesn’t go their way.

They won in Virginia, but just barely. The courts should toss the whole thing out over how it was done and a myriad of other legal issues. But even if they don’t, let this be a lesson to freedom-loving Americans across the country that the other half of the population is waiting to see an opening and pounce on them and their rights the second they get the chance.

While we’re still a republic, Republicans and Independents need to recognize the threat the left represents and work, act and vote accordingly.

Funding Has Not Closed the Gap: School Expenditure and the Persistence of Black–White Differences in Cognitive Performance

Funding Has Not Closed the Gap: School Expenditure and the Persistence of Black–White Differences in Cognitive Performance

Empirical record shows little relationship between school expenditure levels and convergence in black–white cognitive performance.

Lipton Matthew’s for American Greatness

The Funding Argument and Its Limits

A long-standing argument in education policy holds that disparities in school funding between black and white students are a primary driver of the black–white gap in cognitive test performance. The logic is intuitively appealing: if black children attend under-resourced schools, then directing more money toward those schools should, over time, diminish the achievement and cognitive performance gap. Were this argument correct, we would expect to see sustained convergence in test scores as per-pupil spending became more equitable. The evidence, however, does not support this expectation.

Per-pupil expenditure figures tell an important story. In 1972, the average black student lived in a school district spending $3,261 per pupil (in 1992 dollars), compared to $3,397 for the average white student—a gap of $136. By 1992, those figures had converged almost entirely: $5,387 for the average black student versus $5,397 for the average white student—a difference of just $10. This near-perfect equalization of spending across racial lines represents a remarkable shift in resource allocation. If funding were the decisive variable, measurable convergence in cognitive performance should have followed. It did not.

The failure of increased and equalized funding to produce convergence is illustrated sharply by recent data from Illinois. A 2025 report found that 80 schools in the state scored below proficiency in mathematics despite spending above the state average per pupil. Many of these schools serve predominantly black student populations. However, the pattern is not unique to Illinois; it reflects a national picture in which the assumption that money is a primary driver of performance gaps has been repeatedly tested and found insufficient.

The Evidence from National Assessment Data

One of the most comprehensive and methodologically careful examinations of trends in the black–white cognitive gap uses data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the large-scale national assessment administered to representative samples of American schoolchildren—often called “The Nation’s Report Card.” The NAEP long-term trend assessments for mathematics and reading, covering the period 1975 to 2008, show a potent test of whether the gap has narrowed over more than three decades of educational investment.

An analysis of combined NAEP mathematics and reading scores from 1975 to 2008 for white 13-year-olds and white, black, and Hispanic 17-year-olds found that the gap between black and white 17-year-olds had not closed over this period. For 17-year-old black students, the mean difference relative to white 17-year-olds remained at more than three years of educational attainment. The analysis further calculated IQ equivalents using the standard mental age formula across 54 years of educational achievement data. From 1954 to 2008, black 13- and 17-year-olds averaged an IQ equivalent of approximately 85—with values for specific years including 86 and 81 in 1954, 87 and 82 in 1966, 75 and 71 in 1975, and 85 and 77 in 2008. These results indicate no narrowing over 54 years in either educational achievement or IQ equivalent scores.

The same analysis reported that data from large investigations conducted in the 1950s and 1960s in Georgia and Virginia, as well as the Coleman Report of 1966—a nationally representative survey of nearly 600,000 schoolchildren from 4,000 schools—documented the same magnitude of black–white educational achievement gap. In the Coleman data, the gap stood at 2.4 years by Grade 9 and 3.3 years by Grade 12. The report also rendered the sober finding that there was not a strong link between schooling resources and student outcomes. The continuity of this gap from the mid-twentieth century through the early twenty-first century, across different datasets, testing instruments, and decades of increased investment, is an observation of considerable significance.

Longitudinal Evidence from the NLSY Children

Similarly, a major longitudinal study using data from the children of women in the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY79) provides further evidence against convergence. The dataset is particularly valuable because it is longitudinal, uses large samples, tracks children regardless of school attendance, includes both achievement and cognitive measures, employs the same testing instruments over time, and contains extensive family background data, including maternal cognitive ability scores.

Across four tests—reading recognition, reading comprehension, mathematics, and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-R, a widely used measure of verbal IQ)—scores were examined for children born from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s. After controlling for child’s age, maternal IQ, maternal education, family income, maternal age at birth, and family structure, the black–white difference did not decline on any of the tests. For reading comprehension, black scores fell over the period. For the PPVT-R, the implied increase in the black–white difference ranged from 0.13 to 0.19 standard deviations per decade, depending on model specification. The findings were consistent across alternative samples and model specifications.

The study acknowledged the existence of a vigorous debate in the literature and discussed findings from IQ test standardization samples that suggested some narrowing between the early 1970s and early 2000s. However, the author proposed a reconciling hypothesis: that any genuine narrowing in cognitive test scores was concentrated among cohorts born before the late 1970s and that what has been observed since amounts to a plateau—a period of no further convergence—precisely the period covered by the NLSY children data. This interpretation is consistent with the pattern observed in the NAEP and SAT data, in which the closest convergence occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s, after which the gap stabilized or widened slightly. These results are genuinely eye-opening, considering that during these decades, funding gaps steadily closed, and by 1982, spending per pupil in several states actually favored nonwhite students. Interestingly, by 2002, pupil spending for black students was higher in even Southern states like Alabama and Georgia.

A Meta-Analytic Assessment: Estimated Mean IQ and Distributional Data

The most comprehensive recent synthesis of the evidence on racial differences in measured intelligence brings together 139 American studies spanning 1918 to 2017, with a combined sample of over 400,000 individuals. Studies were selected only if they relied on representative U.S. samples, delivered IQ tests with at least three subtests, reported white reference groups, and provided sufficient data to calculate effect sizes. Studies depending on scholastic achievement tests or unrepresentative samples (such as college-only, elite, or city-selected samples) or that lacked within-group standard deviations were omitted.

Using a random-effects meta-analytic model, the overall estimated mean IQ for black Americans was 85. However, the analysis identified strong evidence of small-study effects—a form of bias in which smaller studies, which are more likely to find larger group means for minority groups, disproportionately influence pooled estimates. After correcting for this bias, the estimated mean fell to 81.5. Critically, the largest, most nationally representative datasets produced the lowest black mean IQ estimates. The NLS, NLSY79, NLSY97, ABCD, Project Talent, US Department of Labor, and WW1 enlistee datasets returned black mean IQ values of 81.25, 81.80, 83.19, 79.81, 77.49, and 83.92, respectively. The average across these high-quality large national samples was 81.8—meaningfully lower than the conventionally cited figure of 85 and approximately 18 to 20 IQ points below the white mean.

A moderator analysis concluded that birth cohort, age at assessment, and number of subtests were not statistically associated with the size of the black–white difference, suggesting further evidence against convergence. The analysis found strong evidence against the hypothesis that the gap has receded for cohorts born after 1960. This directly contradicts the premise that equalized or increased school funding would be expected to produce measurable convergence in the cognitive performance of black Americans relative to whites.

The meta-analysis also estimated mean IQ scores for other racial groups: Hispanics at 88.9, Amerindians at approximately 89, Asian Americans at 103 (with a best estimate of 105 when weighted by Asian subgroup population), and Jewish Americans at approximately 107.4. For all groups, the distributions of cognitive scores were found to be approximately normal, with no statistically significant race differences in variance, skewness, or kurtosis once heterogeneity between studies was accounted for.

Table 1: IQ Score Percentiles by Racial Group in the United States

Observed percentile scores from meta-analytic estimates. Simulated scores based on group means and standard deviations (assuming normality) are shown in parentheses.The percentile data in Table 1 are particularly instructive because they reveal the distributional implications of the group mean differences across the full ability spectrum. At the 50th percentile within each group (the group median), the figures closely track the meta-analytic means. The gap between black and white medians—approximately 17 IQ points—is consistent across the observed and simulated values. At higher percentiles, where the selection of students for cognitively demanding academic programs and professional roles is concentrated, the differences become even more consequential in representational terms, though the size of the gap in absolute IQ points remains broadly similar.

Conclusion

The convergence of evidence from national longitudinal assessments, large-scale survey datasets, and comprehensive meta-analytic synthesis leads to a clear conclusion: the black–white gap in measured cognitive performance has not dwindled in the period during which school funding between black and white students has been most closely equalized. Per-pupil spending in black students’ districts reached near parity with that of white students’ districts by 1992. Interestingly, NAEP data spanning 1975 to 2008 showed no narrowing over this entire period. Likewise, longitudinal data from the NLSY79 showed no convergence among children born from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s. And a meta-analysis covering nearly a century of studies found that the gap has remained persistent.

Hence, the continued below-average performance of predominantly black schools in states such as Illinois—even where per-pupil spending exceeds state averages—is therefore not anomalous. It is consistent with a body of evidence accumulated over decades showing that the relationship between school funding and the black–white cognitive performance gap is, at best, indirect and, at the scale of aggregate national data, effectively absent. The funding argument, while politically salient, is not well supported by the empirical record. If anything, these results only provide fodder for hereditarianism.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Canada is playing the long game with Trump and CUSMA. Not everyone thinks it will pay off - Some do...

 There have also been no high‑level, publicly documented formal meetings between the American and Canadian sides since last October

Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade Dominic LeBlanc heads to a Liberal caucus meeting on Parliament Hill in Ottawa April 22, 2026. Photo by HYUNGCHEOL PARK /Postmedia

WASHINGTON, D.C. — When fireworks light up the skies for Canada Day, it’s looking less likely that the country will also be celebrating the renewal of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). July 1 was meant to be the deadline for the countries to decide whether to extend the agreement after a review, launch annual reviews, or withdraw.

The deal is valuable, so Ottawa is keen to secure as much duty-free trade with Washington as possible. Yet, while negotiation rounds have taken place between the U.S. and Mexico, and the first formal meetings for the two are set to begin, there has been no such announcement for Washington and Ottawa. There have also been no high‑level, publicly documented formal meetings between the American and Canadian sides since last October.

Still, all three have reason to talk.

“The idea of truly walking away from North American alignment and integration … has serious adverse consequences for all of the economies,” said Arun Venkataraman, international trade partner at law firm Covington & Burling.

Dominic LeBlanc, the minister responsible for Canada-U.S. trade, met with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer last month, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent met with Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne last Friday, but no major announcements of progress resulted from either. Canada recently appointed a new chief trade negotiator, Janice Charette, who has stayed relatively out of the headlines, apart from recent comments about wanting to see mutuality in negotiations and not expecting a resolution by July 1.

But like Charette, most trade and legal experts are not concerned by the apparent lack of progress.

“If we don’t reach a consensus on July 1,” said Diego Marroquín Bitar, fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic & International Studies, “that doesn’t mean the agreement will end. It can still go on for 10 more years.”

Alfredo Carrillo Obregon, policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said he’s not worried by the lack of talks — at least not yet.

“If we continue to see rhetoric like (Lutnick’s),” he said, “then that would definitely be a cause of concern. If we continue to see that come May, then we can start asking questions about where this is heading.”

He was referring to some inflammatory comments about the talks and Canada’s apparent lower-profile, waiting-game strategy. Last Friday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Trump thinks CUSMA is a “bad deal” that needs to be “reimagined correctly.”

Lutnick was asked whether Canada was right in thinking it had a strategic advantage in waiting and watching as U.S. domestic challenges, such as the war in Iran and midterm elections, mount. He scoffed, calling it the “worst strategy I’ve ever heard. They suck.”

Trade watchers in Washington, however, see things differently.

Playing the long game with the U.S., said Marc Short, chairman of the board for Advancing American Freedom, is the “right strategy.”

“It may not ultimately be successful, but I think it’s the right strategy for right now.”

Inu Manak, senior fellow for international trade at the Council on Foreign Relations, agrees and says that making concessions and acquiescing to the White House has not boded well for other nations.

Keeping the Canadian trade negotiators out of the headlines could also be aimed at avoiding incendiary language that could derail the process.

“Keeping a low profile might be good simply because it means you’re not getting into inflammatory rhetoric that could impact the way these processes are handled,” said Carrillo Obregon.

They may also be waiting on the U.S. midterm elections this November, which could see Democrats, who oppose Trump’s trade agenda, take control of the House.

Manak weighed the pros and cons, noting that it’s in Trump’s best interest to rush any law-changing asks to CUSMA — ones requiring Congressional approval — before the election, but for him to stall non-legislative ones.

But Venkataraman warned against this.

“I would not encourage any party to wait for the midterms or to, in any way, think that the fundamental dynamic or core objectives of the United States will change with the midterms, even though Congress will potentially have a different composition,” he explained.

He expects those objectives to force debate on tightening the rules of origin — on autos and other sectors — and economic security alignment against non-market economies like China, as well as digital services taxes, and dairy supply management.

But exacting concessions will be tricky.

“The purpose of a North American platform,” he said, “is to ensure that the three countries are all benefiting from this partnership, and that the gains are not at the expense of any of the other North American partners.”

I think that there’s a good chance we could see annual reviews occur for the remainder of the Trump administration

Some experts expressed concern over the two-tiered approach the U.S. is taking with Mexico and Canada.

“I think it creates a risk of a bilateral negotiation as opposed to a trilateral one,” said Short.Any major bilateral deals requiring changes in US law, however, would also require congressional approval, Venkataraman said.

Even if some bilateral agreements are forged, in addition to CUSMA, most of the trade watchers believe negotiations will continue beyond July 1.

“I honestly don’t think there’s any incentive for the Trump administration to make a full deal and not change it,” said Manak. “So I think that there’s a good chance we could see annual reviews occur for the remainder of the Trump administration.”

Venkataraman said the White House may push for big changes in various areas that will require sustained negotiations anyway.

Some believe it’s already too late for any consensus to be reached by July 1.

“Even if (Canada) joins tomorrow,” said Marroquín, “we wouldn’t have enough time to discuss everything that needs to be discussed on trade.”

On a positive note, a similar Mexico-first pacing occurred the first time around, and the three sides still forged CUSMA. This time, however, Trump will likely threaten to withdraw as a point of leverage — and he may do so repeatedly.

CUSMA has a six‑month gap between a country giving notice to withdraw and it actually taking effect, so Trump could bring talks to the brink and back down, and then repeat.

“The president could withdraw, change his mind, and do it all over again,” said Manak.

“So I think what we’re likely to see is potentially a lot of threats to withdraw, but that might be pretty much as far as he goes.”

 https://nationalpost.com/news/playing-the-long-game-will-canadas-cusma-wait-and%e2%80%91see-approach-pay-off

Article content

Democrats’ Plan To Jail ICE Agents Makes The End Of The Roman Republic Look Quaint

If Democrats continue down this path, all for the blinding and undying hate of one man, then they tempt a similar reaction.

The Federalist

The left has tried to put Donald Trump in prison for the last decade. So far, they have not succeeded, but it’s not for a lack of trying. They’ve used every dirty trick in the book to try to eliminate their most hated political opponent. It seems like every day we find out new disturbing details about the left’s various plots to discredit and jail the president of the United States.

In Trump 2.0, they’ve become even more desperate, and they no longer limit themselves to hounding the president and his closest associates. Now, anyone who supports the president or carries out orders he issues as the lawful chief executive could find himself a target for left-wing vengeance and reprisal.

And that’s exactly what billionaire Tom Steyer, the current lead Democrat candidate for the governorship of California, the nation’s largest state, plans to do to ICE agents who dutifully carry out our nation’s immigration laws if he wins. Steyer presents his plan in no uncertain moral terms: ICE is evil because it carries out its duty, and its agents must be given no legal quarter in California.

“I’ve made it clear: ICE must be abolished. ICE is acting like a criminal organization, carrying out indiscriminate racial profiling and using violence, intimidation, terrorism, and the murder of Americans to extend Trump’s rule by fear,” he posted April 14 on X.

And he’s not talking about just protesting and refusing to cooperate with federal agents; he wants to create a full anti-ICE apparatus in the state, which contains millions of illegal aliens. He plans to push through radical legislation that would hamstring ICE from being able to identify and locate illegal aliens for removal and create a task force under the command of the attorney general (which will almost certainly be the incumbent, far-left partisan Rob Bonta) to badger ICE in the state. He even intends to work to bring back illegal aliens who have already been deported by the Trump administration.

But the second point of his plan exhibits the recent disturbing escalation in the left’s war on Trump’s immigration mandate.

He declares: “I will give the state Attorney General the authority to hold ICE’s leadership accountable for violence. My plan will pursue supervisory liability. This body of law empowers the California justice system to criminally prosecute and imprison not just the ICE agents who are committing these crimes, but the leadership directing them to do so.”

That’s right. The probable future governor of California pledged not only to go after the Trump administration, not only the top officials in ICE, but also the rank-and-file agents who faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States.

Steyer is no moral trailblazer. He is in no way the first Democrat to call for reprisals against federal employees who serve under the current administration. In fact, it has become an all too common threat from the left since Trump reentered the White House last year.

In January, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries made basically the same threat in response to the Department of Homeland Security assuring ICE officers that they have immunity while carrying out their lawful orders.

“REMINDER: To all members of the Trump administration. The incitement and engagement in state violence against the American people is a serious crime. Donald Trump will leave office long before the five-year statute of limitations expires. You are hereby put on notice,” Jeffries said on X.

Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., called for the prosecution of ICE agents in the field, referring to them as “criminals in masks.”

“You better hope you get pardoned because you will be held accountable for the absolute disregard of the law your agencies have shown over the past year,” Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., told Rodney Scott, the commissioner for Customs and Border Protection.

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., and five other members of Congress, labeled the “Seditious Six,” released a video last November urging members of the military to disobey “illegal orders.” Of course, they did not mention which orders Trump had issued were illegal. But the implied threat remained nonetheless. If Trump issues so-called “illegal orders” and servicemen do not disobey them, then there will be a reckoning for those soldiers when Democrats get back in power. Leftists love their Nuremberg comparisons, after all.

To go after a political opponent with such fervor is radical enough, and the Democrats’ relentless campaign against Trump has strained the bonds of our nation. But it’s something far more radical and sinister to intimidate the federal employees and officials who work under him.

The campaign of reprisal that Tom Steyer and his ilk have been calling for is far more radical than the vendetta that led to the fall of that august republic from which our Founding Fathers took inspiration while crafting our own nation: that of ancient Rome.

By 49 B.C., the Roman Republic, which had stood for 450 years, teetered on the brink. For the previous 90 years, a series of crises had wracked the Roman state, ranging from political violence over land reform to a civil war that resulted in Sulla’s dictatorship to a conspiracy by lesser patrician families to rise up and overthrow the old ruling elite. Ambitious generals and politicians competed with each other, often violently, for an ever greater share of the wealth and glory to be had in the republic’s rapidly growing empire. (For further reading on this period, I recommend these books as a good starting point.)

Gaius Julius Caesar was one such statesman who yearned to win glory for both himself and Rome. After serving as one of the consuls (the co-head executive of the republic — think of it as similar to the presidency) for 59 B.C., Caesar was granted the governorship of three provinces on Rome’s northern frontier. While governor of these provinces, Caesar became entangled in conflicts in Gaul (modern-day France), and over the next eight years he gradually conquered the many tribes of Gaul and brought the region under Roman control.

As with almost every war of the ancient world, Caesar conducted his campaigns with brutality against the people the Romans had traditionally considered barbarians, and he became fabulously wealthy from the plunder he exacted from these tribes. As Caesar achieved greater and greater success, many senators, most notably Cato the Younger, became wary of Caesar’s growing power and popularity in Rome. Caesar was a prominent politician in the Populares “party,” a political alliance that appealed to the common people and generally was opposed by the old aristocratic elite.

Caesar’s enemies began to argue that he had waged illegal wars in Gaul without the authorization of the Senate and broken treaties with Gallic and German tribes. If brought to trial and found guilty, Caesar would almost certainly have faced the end of his political career and possibly even the death penalty.

In 50 B.C., Caesar requested that he be allowed to run for consul again in absentia so that he would not have to return to Rome as a private citizen. Both provincial governors and consuls were immune from legal prosecution during their tenures, but if Caesar returned to Rome to run for consul, he would have to leave his governorship behind and therefore open himself up to prosecution.

So, Caesar was determined to retain command of at least one province and one legion to avoid prosecution until he could run for consul again. Subsequent negotiations with the Senate broke down, and the anti-Caesar faction demanded that he relinquish his command and return to Rome. If he did not before a fixed date, he would be considered an enemy of the republic.

Faced with the choice of surrendering himself up to the mercy of his bloodthirsty enemies or taking his chances in a war with the Senate, Caesar crossed the Rubicon, the legal northern boundary of Italy at the time, with a single legion, initiating the civil war that would de facto end the republican dream.

The Senate, even the most rabidly anti-Caesar politicians who accused him of all manner of dastardly acts in his Gallic campaigns, never considered prosecuting his soldiers for any crimes. Caesar’s legions, many of which had campaigned tirelessly with him for eight years in Gaul, remained more loyal to him than to the republic and followed him into the resulting civil war.

And that brings us to the comparison to today. The legions marched on Rome in response to the Senate’s threat that their leader, not themselves, would be prosecuted. Democrats today play with fire by threatening not only the chief executive once he leaves office but also the ordinary government employees with prosecution for carrying out the president’s lawful orders.

If Democrats continue down this path, all for the blinding and undying hate of one man, then they tempt a similar reaction. The same choice that faced Caesar and his troops at the Rubicon in 49 B.C. may face Trump and anyone who served in the Trump administration if the Democrats regain power and follow through on their promises of retribution. That same doom that befell the Roman Republic may yet befall our own, for much the same reasons: ambition and petty spite.

Trump Trade Rep Says US, Canadian Economies ‘Don’t Fit’ Well as Ottawa Pursues ‘Globalization’

 

U.S. Trade Rep. Jamieson Greer speaks at the National Conservative Convention in Washington D.C., Sept. 3, 2025. (Photo by Dominic Gwinn / Middle East Images via AFP) Photo by DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

A top trade official in the Trump administration said the U.S. and Canadian economies are not entirely compatible, as the two countries pursue different trade strategies.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer made the comments during testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee on April 22.

While discussing the topic of Mexico taking steps to protect its market from certain goods coming from countries like China and Vietnam, Greer was asked in committee whether Canada is taking similar steps.

Canada has done a “little bit” on steel, Greer said, while adding that Ottawa aims to sign more trade agreements with other countries.

“They’re doubling down on globalization when we’re trying to correct for the problems of globalization,” Greer said. “So those are two models that don’t fit together very well.”

Canada implemented a 25 percent surtax on certain steel derivative goods in late 2025, and a similar surtax on Chinese steel in late 2024.

On pursuing new trade deals, the Liberal government has set a goal to double non-U.S. exports in the next decade in response to increased protectionism from the United States. The Trump administration imposes universal tariffs on certain sectors deemed strategic, such as metals and autos, which are deeply integrated across North American borders. Greer’s criticism of Canada’s trade strategy comes amid a flurry of such messaging from U.S. officials, as activity between Canada, the United States, and Mexico ramps up ahead of the upcoming review of their free trade deal. Greer has been striking a different tone on Mexico. He told U.S. representatives that Mexico “understands that it needs to be better aligned with the United States on trade policy.” Greer was in Mexico City on April 20 for direct talks with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. A readout from Greer’s office said the two sides agreed to work on resolving outstanding bilateral trade irritants and strengthening the “rules of origin” for key industrial goods. The United States is seeking to bolster these rules in the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) to ensure that goods being traded tariff-free are mostly made of materials coming from members of the trade bloc. Greer said he’s in regular contact with Canadian officials and these issues have been raised. “If the Canadians don’t want to have the rule of origin, then we'll have to have some other border control to make sure that we aren’t disadvantaged,” he said. During Greer’s meeting in Mexico, the two sides agreed to hold a first round of official bilateral talks on the CUSMA review in late May. Formal talks between the United States and Mexico started in mid-March, with Greer saying at the time that Mexico was ahead of Canada in negotiations. No announcement has been made for similar discussions between Canada and the United States.

The Epoch Times reached out to the office of Canada U.S.-Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc for comment but didn’t immediately hear back. LeBlanc said in late March he expects formal talks with the United States to begin “in due course.” Formal talks were cancelled by U.S. President Donald Trump in late October after the Ontario government ran an anti-tariff TV ad campaign in the United States.

Concessions Sought Amid these developments, Prime Minister Mark Carney said on April 22 Canada would not make any concessions to facilitate trade talks.

Carney’s comment to reporters came after government sources leaked to media that the U.S. administration wants concessions before engaging in trade talks. Canada removed counter-tariffs and its Digital Services Tax last year in a bid to facilitate talks.

“It’s not a case of the United States dictating the terms,” Carney said. “We have a negotiation, we can come to a mutually successful outcome.” The PM said Canada has been working through issues with the United States through high-level contacts to address trade irritants on both sides. “We’ve made some counter proposals, which they’re aware of and the time will come to really roll up our sleeves,” he said. The leaks in the press and Carney’s update on trade negotiations came shortly after the PM released a video address on April 19 in which he said that close ties to the United States have become “weaknesses” that need to corrected in part through trade diversification.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre reacted shortly after by saying Carney was elected on the promise of securing a deal with the United States yet there’s been no breakthrough after a year, while Mexico is having formal talks.

“Has he waved the white flag on getting rid of the tariffs on aluminum, steel, autos and lumber, or is he still fighting that fight? Does anybody know what Mark Carney’s plan is?” Carney said on April 21. Canada’s chief trade negotiator with the United States, former Clerk of the Privy Council Janice Charette, said on April 21 it’s unlikely Ottawa and Washington will resolve their disagreements before the CUSMA review date of July 1. Charette said there’s a lot of focus on that date, but she called it a “checkpoint” rather than a “cliff.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/trump-trade-rep-says-us-canadian-economies-dont-fit-well-as-ottawa-pursues-globalization-6015754?&utm_source=MB_article_paid_f&utm_campaign=MB_article_2026-04-23-ca&utm_medium=email&est=ut%2Bee8DWfHxNvjehAqw5dimGpzKMf%2B0361u13RKoOuJUAVBtrL41y8CciOQ8J6bLDTom&utm_content=highlight-news-2