Obviously, both high tariffs and heavy immigration restrictions come from the same protectionist impulses, but they're sorta cross-purposed, aren't they?
A 25% tariff against Mexico, US consumers, and the terms of the USMCA would hurt the US economy, but hurt the Mexican economy more. And if migrants are already coming across our southern border to flee poverty, doesn't harming the prosperity of Mexico incentivise more people to migrate north?
The President of Mexico after her call with Trump:
"We reiterate that Mexico's position is not to close borders but to build bridges between governments and between peoples."
After the phone call, Trump essentially said she was on board. “She has agreed to stop Migration through Mexico, and into the United States, effectively closing our Southern Border.”
Her telling is that she said that Mexico's position was not to close borders, but to address migration while respecting human rights, and said that if he raised tariffs on Mexico, Mexico would respond by leveling retalitory tariffs.
Both agree that she said she'd "address migration", but that was also her position before Trump's threatened tariffs as well.
Like... if the point of threatening tariffs was to get concessions on internal migration enforcement in Mexico, it doesn't sound like anything has really changed. She said she'd do what she said she'd do before the tariff threat was a thing.
If Trump can claim victory from that and not institute tariffs by pretending he got a win, I'll call it a win because it avoids the tariffs. But I haven't seen anything about something substantive actually changing with Mexico's policy.