Regarding Canadian / US Milk, Butter, Eggs trade factors.

Canada has a supply management system that aims to balance available supply with projected demand (ie if a Canadian farmer's cows are very productive and produce more milk than was permitted by their quota they dump the excess down the drain, they don't get to sell it to the stores to make more money and lower prices). Our system is inefficient, I'd be happy with it being significantly reformed. There are also long internal Canadian political reasons for the way it is.

In that system, foreign countries (US, UK, EU, etc) in trade deals with Canada have negotiated quotas where a certain amount of product can enter Canada duty free (ie 0% tariffs). Above the quota, the tariffs can range from 200% to 300% (ie don't bother sending anything more). The US hasn't exceeded quotas and hasn't paid any duties.

Canadian milk production is inefficient, the US doesn't really need tariffs against it, our farmers can't compete with US farmers. In some sub-categories small quantities of weird products make sense, but by and large, Canada isn't able to produce and ship millions of gallons of milk to the US at cheap prices.

Last year, Canadian exports of milk to the US were about $11mil USD. US exports to Canada were about $62mil USD. Last year, Canadian exports of butter to the US were about $5mil USD, Canadian imports of butter from the US were about $255mil USD. Cheese is also disadvantaged by about 1:5 ratio, about $100mil USD to $500mil USD.

Really, this is a variant of what the US proposes they want to do to bring back medicine production, chip production, steel, aluminum, etc. Note, Canadians pay more for their milk/butter/cheese because of supply mgmt. Be careful in what you ask for and the end result you are trying to get to.

Saying the US doesn't have equivalent tariffs on milk to Canada is a red herring. You don't need them.

By Jean Sexton Beddow (Jsexton) on Thursday, April 17, 2025 - 09:36 pm: Edit

Be very, very careful. Allie and Ally are hunting in the Political Swamp.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 17, 2025 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Sorry, but there just isn’t any doubt he is MS13, anti-Trump fantasies notwithstanding. He was caught red handed transporting illegals for MS13. You can stop arguing his phony merits and answer my original question.

So far, the only two deportees alleged to have been deported improperly are proven criminals. The original question stands. By the way, a majority of Americans support the deportation program and want it accelerated.

You cannot show an improperly deported person. If there was one, real evidence would have surfaced. You can all stop debating due process and answer the question.

Why were known criminals welcomed when that was clearly a bad political strategy? I don’t like the conspiracy theory that George Soros told the junior achievers who ran the White House 46 to do it to destroy the US. Give me a real reason or we’ll have to consider that one.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, April 17, 2025 - 10:10 pm: Edit

This is still the biggest reason.

A Lawyer representing the Trump Administration stated that he was deported due to an administrative error.
This gives Mr Garcia's case a big boost up for being returned.

He was arrested in front of a Home Depot looking for day work, not uncommon, and had no more control of who he was standing next to, than you have at McDonalds. IF he was with MS-13 members, it does not remove his right to due process, to ensure they have the correct folks.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, April 17, 2025 - 10:11 pm: Edit

ADM:

Wrong answer.

You imply, that once a treaty is in place, it should never ever be changed.

You are ignoring the fact that NAFTA was also A signed treaty and in place when DJT negotiated USMCA, which replaced NAFTA.

Your double standard is showing.

You can’t have it both ways. It is not Okay to accept USMCA (which was intended to improve the short comings of NAFTA), and then be critical of DJT when it became apparent that USMCA also had shortcomings.

DJT is using Tariffs as leverage to encourage both Canada and Mexico to negotiate a new treaty. Hopefully, they will get it right, this time.

But criticism of DJT because he is attempting to deliver on his campaign promise to protect U.S. jobs from the negative unforseen aspects of USMCA treaty is just short sighted and uniformed.

Presidents have to live in the real world, and yes, sometimes make mistakes.

This is a very rare example of a President trying to fix a problem that happened during his first term. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but most presidents (particularly one term presidents) do not have enough time to the real world results of a treaty they negotiated, put in place, and have nearly eight years to see the impact it had.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, April 17, 2025 - 10:25 pm: Edit

I have not criticized USMCA, I asked a simple question, If President Trump is perceived by other governments as not keeping to treaties that he has signed, note he made no formal request to renegotiate the USMCA, he simply applied tariffs, then how may that affect current, and future, negotiations?

Given the President Trump has stated that this was done, at least in part, to negotiate better trade agreements, this is a relevant question.

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Thursday, April 17, 2025 - 11:31 pm: Edit

Jswile, treaties can be changed, USMCA had provisions to review and renegotiate, 2026 was the agreed on time. It also had an expiry date (2040s), and a provision to withdraw from and cancel it with I believe 6 months notice. So if you aren't getting the renegotiation you want under the terms you say you are willing to cancel it to get your counter parties attention. Or if you don't want to wait a year to 2026 you give 6 months notice that if it's not changed to your satisfaction you will withdraw. All that's within the terms of the treaty. There was also a side agreement with Canada that if the US was going to use section 232 (security reasons for tariffs) on Canada there would be a 60 day consultation period after announcement before they took effect.

Instead the US administration declared a fabricated reason of mass fentanyl flowing across the Canadian border to impose duties. Then said for section 232 (security) reasons they immediately imposed 25% duties on Steel and Aluminum. Plus other tariffs which seem to come and go.

The slightly slower way was how his first term team brought about the renegotiation of NAFTA. It also could have worked again.

So, in my opinion, his word is worthless. He could have said, Canada/Mexico together or separately show up on this day, I'll give it a maximum of 2 weeks and we are going to negotiate and if don't like the outcome I will announce US withdrawal in 6 months, and that would have got our attention (although maybe the senate could have stopped that). But, instead, we could sign a new deal next month, and in 2 years if he feels like it, he has shown he'll ignore any terms he doesn't feel like following.

And I expect many other nations around the world have probably come to that opinion as well.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 17, 2025 - 11:59 pm: Edit

ADM
He has been arrested on more than one occasion, and identified as MS13 in several situations over several years by police, DEA, intelligence, and judges. It is NOT a matter that he was arrested once and just happened to be standing next to MS13 members one time. He has been photographed many times with his fellow MS13 members. He was arrested in Tennessee transporting illegals aliens picked up in Texas and taken to Maryland in a car tied firmly to MS13. He has been arrested in company of MS13 members more than once. He wasn’t standing next to them; he was part of MS13. He has been found guilty of beating his “wife” more than once. There is just ZERO question that he absolutely positively is MS13. No more arguments about this point.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 04:47 am: Edit

The guy came here illegally in 2011. This illegal alien had his 'due process' and was ordered by the court to be deported in 2019. He was MS13 which was declared a terrorist organization. He was returned to his home country. So, what is the issue here?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 06:50 am: Edit

Two things can both be true at the same time.

Truth: he was accidentally deported.

Truth: if he had not been deported, he would have been deported anyway once they ran a routine scan of his prints and found the proof that he was MS13 and the proof that he had a deportation order in effect.

There is no point in returning him just so he can be deported again five minutes later. If Trump did that, Jessica and ADM would be saying that Trump was wasting taxpayer money giving him unnecessary airline miles.

Are you SURE this is the hill you want to die on?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 07:31 am: Edit

SVC:

Deleted as totally political.

Jean
WebMom

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 07:48 am: Edit

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 10:25 am: Edit

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 11:27 am: Edit

I believe strongly that people in the US without valid status (Visa or citizenship) should be deported as soon as a judicial hearing is held. They get an interpreter, but no free lawyer; their own country can provide one if they want.

It should be IMPOSSIBLE to make any special claims "after the fact." They get their due process either up front (at the port of entry) or on the spot (when nabbed by ICE) in front of a judge.

That said, the US Immigration system is a mess. Migrants should be able to get a hearing within 48 hours of approaching the border with a claim. Congress, ANNUALLY, should delineate the number of immigrants we accept. This might say "1000 doctors, 3000 nurses, 2500 construction workers, 3000 farm workers, 20 supermodels, 10 athletic superstars, 50 actors..." but there should be a number.

There should be a work visa that could turn into a "green card" after X number of years (say 5). On a work visa you get deported if you get convicted of ANY crime (misdemeanor or felony) and on a green card for a felony.

As for the poster boy of the current debate: 1) Who says he is a criminal? Has he been convicted? Or is it just a "anonymous sources and finger pointing?" 2) Are there any actual pictures of his tattoos? I'm hearing conflicting stories. 3) Did his deportation follow the law?

Managing to sneak into the US illegally to have kids shouldn't automatically advantage the parents or kids. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means what? I'd like the Supremes to do their job.

Finally, I'm wondering why we are jailing these people in Central America? Why not just cut them loose there? Why spend American tax dollars to house them?

By F Michael Miller (Fmm) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 12:19 pm: Edit

Mr. Grafton:

Here's the text of the 6th amendment to the constitution:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Note it doesn't say citizen, it says accused, so the 6th applies to everybody.

"and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence" means they get an attorney.

"speedy and public trial" means (imho) that with a judge at the time they are detained at the border probably is unconstitutional.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 12:28 pm: Edit

F Michael Miller:

You are making the same mistake that others have.

Kilmar Garcia (and lots of other migrants in this country) already had their day in court, and received Due Process.
in the Garcia case, a immigration judge ruled.

The problem was he (and others) who did not get the result they desired, never left the country.

What you (and anyone else who claims that they want due process ) need to do, is actually find someone who hasn’t already been before a judge and subsequently had their case adjudicated.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 12:44 pm: Edit

Jswile;

Except, Kilmar Garcia had a subsequent ruling of "withholding of removal" order, which canceled the deportation order, meaning that he was allowed to stay.

Should he have received this as part of his due process?

I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, or a judge.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 12:45 pm: Edit

@Mr. Miller,

A point of clarification. The 6th amendment does not, by itself, guarantee the right to legal counsel in all criminal prosecutions, and definitely not in civil litigation or quasi-criminal litigation. The Supreme Court has interpreted the 6th amendment to mean you have the right to hire your own attorney for any criminal prosecution - but that doesn't mean you get one provided to you for free for all criminal cases. It also does not apply in civil cases at all.

That being said, SCOTUS has ruled that defendants accused of a felony *do* have the right to free counsel under the 6th Amendment. Free counsel may not be provided in misdemeanor cases or petty offenses (e.g., traffic tickets).

I am unfamiliar with the case law regarding administrative deportation hearings and whether the 5th and 6th amendments apply to them - but based on my vague knowledge of recent news, I'd guess they do. However, I'm not clear that *free* counsel may be provided (and I doubt it).

Anyway, the bottom line is that it is not entirely accurate to say that the 6th Amendment "means they get an attorney." It's more complicated than that. The defendant can be represented if they can afford an attorney, or if an attorney will represent the defendant pro-bono - but only in certain limited cases does one have an unfettered right to actually *be* represented.

Background: I'm a licensed California attorney (living and working in Kansas, ironically). My specialty is in patent law, but I remember certain basics in constitutional law from law school.

[EDIT] Just to make sure, nothing I say constitutes legal advice. If you have a real criminal or immigration issue or question, then seek an attorney who is an expert in those areas.

I'm an expert in intellectual property, not any other area of law, and even then I'd have to actually engage someone in a formal attorney-client relationship before issuing legal advice.

I know it may seem "lawyerish" to say the above - but in my position it's *my* responsibility to make sure people don't rely on my opinions when they shouldn't, and so it's me and my reputation on the line if I don't issue such disclaimers.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 01:18 pm: Edit

Deportation or refusal of entry is not neccessarily a criminal case at all.

One of the things I kept hearing from liberals INSISTING that they should be called "undocumented" rather than illegal immigrants is that entry without a visa is not a criminal offense at all.

Trafficing others is, but AFAIK, refusing entry to a non-citizen or deporting a non-citizen is not considered a criminal prosecution as the entry itself is not neccessarily criminal. And this is something I got from the same groups now trying to INSIST on protections based on criminal law applying to deportation.

By F Michael Miller (Fmm) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 02:00 pm: Edit

All:

I was talking about having hearings at the point of apprehension.

The amendment says "In all criminal prosecutions"

So if such a hearing isn't a criminal prosecution, than it doesn't apply. Otherwise (except in instances where SCOTUS says it doesn't apply) it applies.

Mr. Fay: thank you for your clarifications. All of my knowledge comes from having a friend who is a public defender / criminal defense atty.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Free lawyers is much misunderstood. If Elon Musk is arrested and demands a free lawyer, he will be told that he can pay for it.

If someone is arrested and gets a free lawyer and a later check says he had the money he will be sent a bill.

I had an experience in which this was explained to someone in my presence by a judge.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 05:47 pm: Edit

I am tired of being ignored. No one has answered the original question. The Kilmar discussion is nonsense and ENDS NOW. His legal status is well documented and arguments about it require ignoring inconvenient facts. I will delete any further repetition of that nonsense. I want an answer to the original question.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 05:58 pm: Edit

I don't know how more directly that I can answer your question than this.

The Democrats are challenging ALL deportations.

President Trump's Administration's Lawyer stated in court that that Kilmar was deported in error.
This statement boosted chances of winning in court. Note the Supreme Court's 9-0 decision that Kilmar be returned.

I think this is a strategic move by the Democrats taking advantage of the "deported in error" statement by a DoJ lawyer. Given the numbers of folks rounded up, someone was going to get the lucky straw and be the poster child for this, and Kilmar drew the lucky straw.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Steve, I endeavored to answer your original question yesterday evening. It's possible it was missed in the shuffle.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 09:44 pm: Edit

No answer seen. Why didn’t 46 screen out criminals?