The second main development regarding the US trade policy is that the government wants to use legal regulations based on different acts. “Now the administration uses section 301 tariffs based on forced labor as unfair trade practice to justify this step”, Harrell said. Importers of European Union (EU) goods, for example, pay tariffs of 10 percent. In his view, this measure is consistent with the Turnberry agreement between the EU and the United States, which caps tariffs on European products at 15 percent. Elaborating on forced labor as pretext, Harell stressed: “President Trump has lawyers who work very hard to come up with theories how to implement a baseline tariff of 10 or 15 percent”. According to the former Senior Director for International Economics and Competitiveness at the White House, there is nothing US trade partners can do to prevent tariffs of 10 or 15 percent. At the same time, USTR is conducting an investigation into trading partners’ industrial overcapacity that could also lead to section 301 tariffs.

Thirdly, the United States’ trade conflict with Canada is getting a lot of attention by the US government. Harrell calls this a “trade war against Canada” in which President Trump had announced tariffs of 50 percent that are in force now. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney then announced retaliatory tariffs. Over the past couple of months, the US has tried to renegotiate its free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada (USMCA). “Trump is much happier with how the negotiations are going with Mexico,” Harrell said. “In contrast, he has felt that the negotiations are not going well with Canada”. Despite long-standing issues with Canada over dairy products and aircraft he is “reasonably optimistic” that Canada and the US will manage to get through this conflict and renegotiate the USMCA.

For Harrell, the disadvantages of the trade policy in President Trump’s second term are clear. “The overwhelming majority of economists say the US consumers are paying for the tariffs. Moreover, the tariffs have not contributed to an increasing manufacturing base,” he said. Looking at the sectors which are most affected by the US tariffs, Harrell highlighted steel, aluminum, and cars. Especially the automotive industry is highly important for the United States and its trade partners. “The US, the EU, Japan, and South Korea should agree on effectively zero tariffs for cars,” Harrell recommended. The policy solution for American industries should involve partners and allies. He worried that the US, while protecting its markets in sectors such as semiconductors, drones, and robots and trying to de-risk from China, is falling behind on the quality and speed of innovation: “Look at how fast China is gaining market shares in cars. We have to move at Chinese speed”.

Here you can watch the full webinar.

Der Beitrag “There is nothing US trade partners can do to prevent tariffs of 10 or 15 percent” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Robin Fehrenbach

Governor Murphy, what is your perspective on the meaning of the upcoming tournament for the state of New Jersey with the MetLife Stadium being the location for the final?

It’s a huge deal. We are co-hosting the World Cup with New York City. So, it’s New York and New Jersey as partners. My wife, former first lady of the state of New Jersey, Tammy Murphy, is the chair of the host committee. We’ve got a great relationship with New York, and that’s interestingly through three different mayors: Bill de Blasio and I pitched this initially; Eric Adams and I were the honorary chairs, if you will; and now Zohran Mamdani, who’s a huge soccer or football fan, in his case of Arsenal London.

[related]We have eight matches at MetLife Stadium, which will be renamed New York, New Jersey Soccer Stadium, with five first round matches, including Germany vs. Ecuador, which should be terrific. That’ll be Germany’s toughest match in their group stage. Then we have a round of 32. As you know, this is now for the first time ever a 48 nation tournament, which is a new wrinkle with a bigger field. We then have a round of 16. And as you rightfully point out, we have the World Cup final at 3 pm New Jersey time on Sunday, July 19.

We expect visitors somewhere between two to three million coming into the region. The economic impact is measured in the billions of US Dollars. Employment is measured in the double-digit thousands. Not to mention what this will do to football in America, the legacy, that will unfold long after the 39 days. For all the above reasons, it‘s a tremendous deal, both for New Jersey and New York, but more broadly for America, Canada, and Mexico.

You just mentioned it briefly: What are the most important economic ramifications of the biggest sports event in the world for New Jersey and the United States as a whole?

I don’t have a number for the US, but the estimate of the economic impact is 3 billion US Dollars for the New York, New Jersey region. Each of the state of New Jersey and the city of New York and state of New York, plus private sector money will be financing this. But you’ll get a 7 to 10 times return on any amount of money that gets invested in terms of economic impact. I mentioned employment. The number for the United States more broadly, Canada, and Mexico, will be much bigger.

The estimate of the economic impact is 3 billion US Dollars for the New York, New Jersey region.

Interestingly, the last time the US hosted the World Cup was 1994, and it was a 24-team tournament. That was the last year in the history of the event with 24 teams competing in the tournament. To this day, that World Cup set the all-time attendance record. That tells you two things, certainly for America. Number one, the interest in soccer or football and specifically the World Cup is very high. And number two, we have very big stadiums, and we will fill them.

Let’s get to another issue. The brutal ICE operations have shocked not only citizens in the United States, but people around the world. What are the implications for the security of international guests during the event?

First of all, Donald Trump got elected or reelected in large part because he promised to secure our borders. President Biden actually had done that towards the end of his administration, but it was perceived that we had not secured our borders sufficiently, particularly the Southern border. So, President Trump runs full square on that commitment. And that is the case today: The southern border is largely secure. It has been done in a way that I wouldn’t have done it in terms of separating families, diminishing our status as the world’s immigration nation. In other words, there’s a humane, smart way to do that and still achieve the same results. Overwhelmingly, the American people want secure borders. And Donald Trump tapped into that. The problem is he took a very unwise, ill-advised, and brutal step that the American people did not ask for, which was inside of the United States to aggressively prosecute an immigration agenda. He’s paid a price for that. It’s clear that the public pushed back on that, not just in Minnesota, but elsewhere, certainly in New Jersey.

The American public is not just okay with secure borders. They also want a low crime, safe country. They want their communities, their streets, their cities, their states, their country to be crime-free. New Jersey is rated the safest state in the nation when I left office three months ago. A big part of that reason, not the only reason, is that we pursue a criminal justice agenda and not an immigration agenda. If you’re a criminal, we’re coming after you – we don’t care what your immigration status is. As opposed to, we’re coming after you because we want to check on your immigration status when there’s no evidence at all that you’ve ever committed a crime.

I have absolute and complete confidence it will be secure so that families can go feeling good about their personal safety, the fan experience, the transportation to and from.

Specifically to the World Cup, I have absolute and complete confidence it will be secure so that families can go feeling good about their personal safety, the fan experience, the transportation to and from. I cannot speak for the Trump administration. But as we sit here in late April – and I base this as well on our experience hosting nine matches, including both semis and the final for the Club World Cup last summer, where there was some noise around ICE agents at matches, that turned out not to be the case – I don’t expect that will be an issue for this World Cup either.

Could you elaborate on the overall image the United States under the Trump administration would like to convey to the rest of the globe, particularly in the partnership with its Mexican and Canadian neighbors after having some tensions on different policy fields like most of all trade and tariffs?

You can imagine my perspective. I did not vote for President Trump. I’ve tried as Governor and I will always try to find common ground. And we were reasonably successful at that. But so much of what he stands for our image, our turning our back on 80-year-proofed institutions like NATO, on multilateral institutions, on our allies, not speaking to our allies, I don’t support any of that. That is against every fiber I have, both as a former Governor and as a former Ambassador, in my case, to the Federal Republic of Germany. Let me be crystal clear: I know for a fact that President Trump is a huge fan of the sport and of this tournament. You saw last summer a very successful Club World Cup. And you saw him very much in the middle of that, including at the final between Chelsea and Paris Saint-Germain. I’m optimistic that the Trump administration knows that this is a big deal and the world is watching. Frankly, that Americans are watching and this will be a success because they will realize that is in their self-interest to make sure that this is a success.

I know for a fact that President Trump is a huge fan of the sport and of this tournament.

When I first became Governor, it was not yet clear that the US, Mexico, and Canada would win the right to host the World Cup. As a Democrat and as a sitting Governor, I supported President Trump’s inclinations and was pitching that he would do the right thing at the end of the day. As much as I’m not a fan, and I’m certainly not a fan of our global image right now, I believe with a high degree of conviction, that this will be a successful World Cup.

Yes, we’ve had our differences with Canada and Mexico. Canada is the principal trading partner with 36 of the 50 American states, including New Jersey. In Mexico, where I’ve been twice in the past six months, there are clearly some more challenges, particularly with the drug cartels and the Southern border, which I understand. But this is our neighborhood. Again, I believe, the tournament will be a success, not just through the American lens, but through the lens of all three countries.

Affordability is a major social issue in the United States. However, tickets for the World Cup matches are very expensive, costs for transportation and accommodation are high. Will the World Cup only be an event for wealthy people and exclude other citizens from participating?

No, with a high degree of certainty. Where that debate is today versus where things settle in June and July, may be very different worlds. But I’ll make a couple of comments. Number one, FIFA has already said they would put aside much more fair-priced tickets for fans of countries that are in those matches. That was a good first step. Secondly, FIFA uses dynamic pricing aggressively, meaning they are very good at finding the supply-demand crossover and getting that into equilibrium. One message I might have for fans is to watch and wait as this settles out. I’m confident that there will be tickets available that are affordable. Only FIFA controls ticket prices.

You mentioned affordability more broadly. Having said that, I know there’s been a lot of noise around the transit costs. That will also land in a place that is acceptable. With regard to housing, there’s still plenty of places where you can get a hotel room, an Airbnb, rent a house, whatever it might be. I’m confident that both the in-stadium experience and what it costs a family to get to and from and spend the night will settle in a more reasonable place.

One last comment: In New Jersey and in New York there will be a whole range of fan zones and fan neighborhood activations. We are the most diverse region in America. The diaspora is already present. If you went to Paterson, New Jersey, you’d find one of the largest Moroccan communities in America and in the world outside of Morocco. If you went to the East Ward of Newark and you said, I want to meet someone who speaks Portuguese, whether they be Portuguese or Brazilian, they will line up around the block with folks who speak Portuguese, just to pick two examples.

Do you think that European football or American soccer, as it is called, will finally have its breakthrough moment in the United States through the help of this big tournament?

I politely argue a little bit with your premise. First of all, the 1994 World Cup is responsible for the explosion of interest in soccer that’s already taken place. If you look at the youth level, it’s the number one participated sport in America. Secondly, the World Cup of ’94 gave birth to the men’s high-level professional league, the Major League Soccer, where Lionel Messi plays and David Beckham had played. This was a successor, if you will, to the professional leagues in which Pelé, Giorgio Chinaglia, and Franz Beckenbauer played the end of their careers in the early 1970s. Girls and women have participated, not just in soccer but in sports, at a very high level for five or six decades, partly because of a law called Title IX. It mandates that any public dollars spent for boys and men in athletics must be spent at the same amount for girls and women.

Let’s now accelerate from 1994 to 2026. The MLS has come a long way. It still needs to travel another long way. I think, this World Cup will help propel that. Put differently, I want to see Leo Messi in a club team at the age of 23, not 38. I love him. And I’d love to see Thomas Müller, who came to the Vancouver Whitecaps at the age of 36, at the age of 23. Our very best American players, for the most part, still go to Europe to play. The women are the top one, two, or three team in the world every year. We are the defending World Cup or Olympic champions almost no matter what year you look at for the past several decades. The NWSL, our women’s professional league, competes at world class level. My family and I own a piece of the New York, New Jersey team called Gotham FC. The German Ann-Katrin Berger is our goalie. Esther González, who was the striker for Spain, is our striker. Rose Lavelle, who I would argue is our best player, plays in our club team.

You’re going to see a lot more pitches built in neighborhoods that right now don’t have any access to soccer. You’ll see an increase of playing boys and girls who otherwise would not have played the sport.

I also think finally you’re going to see a lot more pitches built in neighborhoods that right now don’t have any access to soccer. You’ll see an increase of playing boys and girls who otherwise would not have played the sport. The World Cup of ’94 put us on the map and built a foundation. This World Cup will take us to new heights.

Let’s come to the final question. How will the US team and the German team perform throughout the tournament?

Well, those are two very different answers. Right now, if you look at the betting odds, you’ll see Spain, France, England in that order as the three favorites. Then you have a cluster, which includes Brazil, Argentina, Holland, and the Germans. By the way, we speak with our German friends, who know a lot more about this sport. Sami Khedira has become a very close family friend among others. The German lens on this team is more critical than the non-German lens. Folks look at the back line and perhaps the goaltender in the absence of Manuel Neuer, and I assume the answer is Neuer is still not going to be on the squad, and raise more questions than they normally would for a German team going into a World Cup. I have no issues with the midfield and the strikers. They hold up against everybody with the possible exception of France and Spain. I personally think they will surprise. It’s not hard to get into the round of 32. If you look at the brackets, I believe they would meet France in Philadelphia on July 4th, which is the 250th birthday of America. That will be their toughest match. They play Ecuador in New Jersey. Germany is at a minimum a quarter-final to semi-final team.

Regarding the Americans, I’m hopeful. They had a very challenging recent international window. They got outclassed by Portugal and Belgium. We’ve got a lot of good players. Mauricio Pochettino is a world-class trainer. The tournament needs the Americans to do well which means at least a quarterfinal presence. That’s where they were in 2002 when it was South Korea and Japan as hosts. The Canadians and Mexicans probably also are pleading the same. The Americans are our favorite team. Right behind that would be the Germans. But the tournament is a better tournament if the Americans go deep, certainly if the Mexicans go deep, if Alphonso Davies is healthy and the Canadians can go deep. If you’ve got the hosts still in it, you will keep the three countries, their citizens and fans excited. That has a spill-on effect into the broader success of the World Cup.

 Philip Murphy was U.S. Ambassador to Germany and Governor of the state of New Jersey. He is also a long-standing member of the Atlantik-Brücke.

Der Beitrag „This World Cup will take us to new heights“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Der Beitrag “The World Cup is an opportunity to showcase Méxiko” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Listen to the conversation:

Interview: Robin Fehrenbach

Mr. Nuñez-Neto, the U.S.-Mexican border is roughly 2000 miles long. Can you give us an update: What distance has been newly covered with steel fences, walls or border installations since President Donald Trump took office?

The government has not constructed any kind of significant new stretches of fencing. There are some demonstration projects that it has constructed on the border to test different kinds of technology. Some of this relates to some disputes and some funding issues between the Congress and the administration and even within the administration.

Near San Diego is a site where a lot of prototypes are being shown. Is the president creating a showcase regarding the wall?

[related]Yes. In San Diego and in a couple of other parts of the border the government has constructed some demonstration projects to test different designs. That is important because the border is 2000 miles long, and it’s not all the same. There are parts where there are floods regularly and where it’s mountainous and rugged. One design isn’t going to work everywhere.

Can you estimate how much of the distance will be covered by the time the next presidential election takes place?

That’s a pressing question for the administration. The president would like to construct up to 500 miles of walls or fencing before the election. According to news media reports that just came out there has been a little bit of a dispute internally of what the cost of that might be. The U.S. Department of Defense apparently concluded that the cost was substantially higher than what it had thought. At least to date, the Pentagon has moved very slowly in transferring the funds that the president would like shifted for construction.

The president would like to construct up to 500 miles of walls or fencing before the election.

How did President Trump succeed in materializing at least a partial financing of his plans to build a wall, although the positions in Congress between Republicans and Democrats are totally divided?

The administration was unable to get Congress to approve funding for new barriers on the border. It’s probably worth pointing out that we already have roughly 700 miles of physical barriers which include both pedestrian fencing – that is fencing that is intended to keep people from crossing – and what they call vehicle barriers. These are intended to stop vehicles from crossing illegally. There was a dispute between the administration and Congress over how much additional barriers were needed and how much they were going to cost. Congress declined to appropriate funding for that purpose. In response, the president declared a national emergency on the border.

Under U.S. law, in times of national emergencies the president has fairly broad latitude to take emergency actions, including to move funds from accounts to pay for measures that address the emergency. There have been some law suits surrounding this issue. So far Congress has not succeeded in stopping the transfer of funding, despite that it appears that the process is moving pretty slowly, probably more slowly than the administration would like.

It appears that the process is moving pretty slowly, probably more slowly than the administration would like.

The president’s plans have also resulted in the longest shutdown in U.S. history with a duration of 35 days. Regarding the understanding of such measures by the public: How much is this kind of extreme policy accepted by American citizens?

The public has unfortunately grown a little bit used to government shutdowns. They used to be extremely rare and over the last seven to eight years they have become fairly regular. It’s a symptom of a broader issue with our politics in the United States today which is characterized by polarization – an unfortunate and shortsighted one when it ends up shutting the government down in order to achieve tactical results by wielding a very blunt object.

In this last shutdown substantial parts of the government stopped running. The public gets upset when it starts to feel the effects. For example, air traffic controllers started being unable to keep up the operational speed that they normally have. Some airports had substantial delays. That’s what broke the camel’s back with regard to the shutdown.

As you already mentioned, Donald Trump also imposed a national state of emergency while speaking of a national crisis on the Southern border. How severe is the problem of drug trafficking and crimes committed by illegal immigrants?

Drug trafficking has obviously been a large historical issue across the physical land border. I am most concerned about hard drugs like cocaine and heroin. More than 90 percent of those drugs generally come through our ports of entry because they are easy to conceal. You can smuggle them in small quantities and still make a lot of money. This issue has been fueled by the opioid epidemic in the United States which is a real problem and policy challenge. But the policy solutions should focus more on what we can do to better detect and interdict these drugs at our actual ports of entry.

As far as the violence committed by migrants is concerned, there is no evidence that illegal or legal immigrants in the United States commit crimes at a higher rate than the average U.S. citizen. That is not a huge concern. There has been a dramatic surge in migration over the last year and a half from Central America to the United States and it has predominantly been fueled by families and children. There is no doubt that there is a crisis on the border but it’s more of a humanitarian crisis than any other crisis.

There is no evidence that illegal or legal immigrants in the United States commit crimes at a higher rate than the average U.S. citizen.

Is president Trump trying to build a narrative working with fear?

The president has taken some incidents committed by bad actors and has often portrayed them as if that happens all the time. I am not convinced that’s exactly the case. Our border security agencies have been stretched to their breaking point. The issue is that we have frontline law enforcement officers and border patrol agents trying to handle a humanitarian crisis: They are being overwhelmed with young children and families.

The way the system works in the United States is that our frontline border agencies before the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are the border patrols between the ports of entry and the Office of Field Operations (OFO) at the ports of entry. Their facilities are only intended to hold people for a very short amount of time. We are talking of twelve to twenty-four hours. Other parts of the government are supposed to take those populations that need to be detained and put them in detention facilities that are geared to hold people for an extended period of time. Because the rest of the system has been completely overwhelmed by this surge in migration, we’re seeing people kind of stack up at our border facilities for many days at a time. This is unsanitary, and it’s unfair to our frontline law enforcement on the border.

Our border security agencies have been stretched to their breaking point. We have frontline law enforcement officers and border patrol agents trying to handle a humanitarian crisis: They are being overwhelmed with young children and families.

Will the deals with Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras that have been negotiated under high pressure by the U.S. government in 2019 really limit illegal immigration into the USA on a permanent basis?

They might. We are already seeing the numbers decrease a little bit over the last couple of months. Some of that could be seasonal. This is traditionally the time of a year when migration starts to slow down a little bit. It could also be happening due to the policies taking effect.

The bigger question is whether these policies will stand up in court. We have already seen competing rulings by different courts around this question. In the Immigration and Nationality Act, the law that governs the migration to the United States, there are provisions that would allow asylum seekers to remain in a safe third country. In some respect the administration has implemented something that looks a lot like a safe third country process without going through the actual loops you need to go through to designate a country like Mexico as safe third country. That will probably be litigated over the next year.

The administration has implemented something that looks a lot like a safe third country process without going through the actual loops you need to go through to designate a country like Mexico as safe third country.

Why are children still being separated from their parents on American soil?

There are legitimate reasons why children can sometimes be separated from their parents if their parents have committed a crime and if the government believes that the children will be endangered if they were to remain with their parents. Even in the Obama administration, when I was at CBP, we would have some incidents in which children were removed from their parents when it was deemed that their parents were criminals. The family separation policy that was put in place last year was substantially broader than that. It’s unclear to me why this is still happening.

It seems as if no long-term solution for this problem on the horizon.

I have been frustrated for years that the debate has been focused on what happens on the border, which is a symptom of the problem and not the actual challenge. The problem is that our system and our laws in the United States are antiquated and haven’t been updated in almost 40 years. We need to reform our system. We also need to recognize that these countries in Central America are essentially functioning as failed states where you have lawlessness and criminal elements including gangs like MS-13 taking over wide swaths of the country and making life basically unlivable for large parts of the population. As an American I think we need to take some responsibility for the fact that these gangs actually originated in the United States and were exported to Central America in the 1980s.

It’s sometimes very dangerous for immigrants to be sent back to the Mexican side of the border because they are exposed to robbery or violence. Could you elaborate on that?

One of the issues that doesn’t get talked about enough is that families and children are making the trip from Central America to the United States. This journey is incredibly dangerous for them and involves putting themselves in the hands of smugglers and criminals. There are horrible stories about the numbers of women who make this kind of journey that end up being violated in some way or other.

This is a deep concern, and this is probably one of the reasons why it’ll be difficult to designate Mexico as a safe third country. Mexico has taken enormous strides over the last twenty to thirty years and has become a middle-income country and has improved its security situation notwithstanding the wars with the cartels. But it’s still a pretty dangerous place, and migrants get routinely taken advantage of and have crimes committed against them.

You have extensively analyzed U.S. migration policy and worked on legislation in the Senate. What policy would you recommend to guarantee an effective immigration system with secure borders while simultaneously allowing for humane procedures in the process of seeking asylum?

Frankly speaking, it’s not rocket science. When I was working in Congress, there were multiple efforts both under the Republican president George Bush and the Democratic president Barack Obama to pass comprehensive immigration reform. It’s interesting that in both cases the broad contours of a possible reform were fairly similar. They generally involved accepting that we have between ten and thirteen million people living without legal status in the United States. We’ll never be able to find and remove them all. In many cases these people have been here for decades and have built lives in the United States and have U.S. citizen offspring. We need to provide these people with some avenue for having a kind of legal status whether it’s citizenship or something on a path towards citizenship.

It also involves making smart investments in our border that are targeting the problems we see on the border and not just building a wall or fences to make us feel better. It involves acknowledging that we need immigration and guest workers as Europe does as well. Our population is aging and has become accustomed to benefits like Social Security and Medicare. Without robust immigration numbers it’s going to be very difficult to continue that in the future.

We have between ten and thirteen million people living without legal status in the United States. We’ll never be able to find and remove them all.

How important will this issue be in the 2020 presidential election?

It’s clear that the administration wants to make it a primary issue during the election. What you hear from Democrats is more of a focus on economic topics and health care than immigration. That will probably be some sign of where the election is headed depending on what you hear more in the debates.

What is the Democrats’ strategy to counter the narrative and policy of the president?

Unfortunately, the Democrats are fairly divided on this issue. You have politicians on the far left who want to abolish immigration and customs enforcement. I personally think – and this is not a RAND position right now – that this is shortsighted. There are points that Democrats ought to be speaking about. One of them is that this administration has used a lot of a tough rhetoric on immigration but that it has overseen the most rapid increase in illegal immigration in quite some time. We are on track for a million apprehensions at the border this fiscal year. This would be the largest number since the early 2000s and almost three times more than what we saw in the last years of the Obama administration.

The USA has always been a country of immigration. Will it lose its status of an almost mythical land where you can fulfill your personal dreams if you just try hard enough?

I truly hope not. I myself am an immigrant from Argentina and a naturalized citizen. Yet, having not been born in the United States, I had the privilege to work as a senior advisor to multiple senators on an important committee in Congress. I have been a presidential appointee. Those are the kinds of opportunities that still exist in the United States for immigrants. Immigrants can make a difference. But immigration has also always been a polarizing debate in the United States going back hundreds of years. Both holds true.

Here you can find Blas Nuñez-Neto’s profile at the RAND Corporation.

Der Beitrag “The government hasn’t constructed new stretches of fencing” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..