Politics roundup: Mexico faces tariffs over U.S. immigration complaints

The White House is threatening serious taxes on Mexican imports if undocumented immigration doesn’t stop. Is this reasonable and possible for Mexico?

Tariffs loom large again

Who knew that one of the most mind-numbing lessons in your high school government class would prove so relevant? What fifteen year old would know? It seemed like tariffs were a thing of the past – a petty move employed by leaders of yore. Oh, but what young fools we were.

You see, tariffs have become headline news of late. First, there were the staggering ones levied against Chinese imports. Those soured relations between China and the United States, unsettled global markets, and backfired on Americans themselves.

Now, Mexico is facing a five percent import on goods imported into the United States. The White House says the tariffs are necessary to stem a flood of undocumented immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border. Mexico, it says, isn’t doing enough to dissuade unofficial migrants. The tariffs will increase to ever-higher percentages if the problem isn’t fixed, and soon.

Critiques of U.S. policy tend to center on the humanitarian needs of some migrants, who say they are fleeing violence in nations south of Mexico. Economists and other experts have also worried about the effect of tariffs on both the global economy and more local jobs.

The tariffs are set to take effect on Monday, which makes the ongoing talks between Mexico and the U.S. doubly urgent. That doesn’t mean the talks are going well.

Reports state that Mexican representatives are open to some measures, such as requiring potential immigrants to try entering another country first, or making them stay in Mexico until their applications are formally approved by the U.S. That may not be enough for the U.S., however.

The President told reporters: “We’ll see what happens. But something pretty dramatic could happen.” Guess it would be boring if things worked out.

Mr. President goes to Europe

During the steadily building affair of the Mexico tariffs, the U.S. President was busy traveling through the United Kingdom and part of Europe for a series of state visits. It was, as many expected, a mixed bag of serious photo opportunities with the Queen and plenty of unfortunate tweets.

Minutes before landing in London, the President revived a long-simmering feud with London Mayor Sadiq Khan. He let Twitter know that, in his estimation, Khan was a “stone cold loser” who was a terrible mayor and short, too.

So much for the “strong and enduring ties between our countries,” as outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May had referenced. Few seemed terribly happy to see the American President. Protesters carried various unflattering signs and sculptures, including a “Trump baby” balloon.

Close observers also noted some quieter resistance from U.K. officials. Don’t get too excited, however. You’ll never see the Queen installing an art piece of Trump sitting on a gold toilet in the middle of Buckingham Palace. She did give him a copy of Winston Churchill’s account of World War II, which could maybe be interpreted as a pointed remark on cooperation and conflict. At least, it might be if you’re the kind of person who matches your gloves to your handbag.

May, for her part, presented him with a draft copy of the 1941 Atlantic Charter, signed by Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It could be a nice gesture, a gift required by duty, a reminder of the once-friendly relationship between the countries involved, or all of the above.

Why people are worried about the 2020 census

If talk of tariffs has made you nervous in way that recalls 11th-grade American History exams, then steel yourself. We’ve also got to talk about the census.

Now, the census has been around for generations. It’s been implemented every decade since 1790, to be precise. It’s an American tradition, and one that’s vitally important. After all, how can you govern a people if you don’t really know who they are?

That means the census must be as accurate as possible. Inconsistencies in how data is collected and interpreted could lead to disastrous changes in policies, programs, elections, and more. With a whole decade in between counts, getting a census wrong – however you choose to interpret that – could be a big deal.

Next year’s census is already facing some serious critiques. According to some early reckonings of the U.S. Census Bureau’s proposed methods, people of color could be undercounted by as many as 4 million individuals. That could then lead to misallocations of funding and support for services, leaving people and communities behind.

Part of the problem stems from the citizenship question set to be included on this census. People who are not U.S. citizens may be scared away from completing the census, contributing to the inaccurate count. It’s not as if the current White House administration has proven itself to be a friend to migrants, from the above-mentioned tariffs to a wide-reaching immigration ban.

The Census Bureau itself concluded that the question could be a “major barrier” to full participation. Right now, it’s not clear whether or not the question will be included. The Supreme Court is expected to rule of the matter later this month, giving us an answer for this round.

Hicks and Donaldson reportedly told to keep quiet

The House Judiciary Committee wants to talk to Hope Hicks and Annie Donaldson – but will it get any real information out of them?

According to reports, Hicks (a former White House communications director) and Donaldson (a former deputy counsel) were directed not to turn over any documents relating to their time at the White House. That’s executive privilege for you.

Chairman Jerry Nadler argues that the documents in question are no longer covered by executive privilege. So, there remains a possibility that the former White House officials might still need to bring something to the table. They are subject to subpoenas that request their presence at a later hearing.

Hicks may also still be able to submit documents from her time with the 2016 Republican presidential campaign – even the White House can’t really argue that those records are covered under executive privilege. They haven’t tried, yet, anyway.

And, finally, your palate cleanser

Roller coasters were invented to save us from our own filthy, sinful ways. It seems strange, considering the hedonistic contexts in which most roller coasters are situated. Carnivals are pretty much ground zero for gluttony. But the roller coaster itself might not be too bad. You can’t get up to much trouble in moment, what with being strapped in to a seat and screaming your head off.

LaMarcus Adna Thompson, widely considered to be the father of the roller coaster, was a devout Christian who also made women’s stockings and probably had a least a couple of weird feelings about the whole matter.

Really, though, Thompson was upset at the proliferation of unsavory delights in American culture, from saloons to gambling halls. A lightly regulated railroad nearby, which used gravity and a big hill to transport coal, gave him an idea. Thus, essentially, the first roller coaster was on its way.

The history of the roller coaster is far more complex than that, of course. It’s gone from terrifying and occasionally life-threatening entertainment to family-friendly adventures, and back again. Still, it remains fun to talk about. That said, many of us will stay safely on the ground, thank you very much.