By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a conversation between President-elect Trump and Mexican President Sheinbaum, Trump declared victory in stemming illegal immigration. Sheinbaum, however, stated that Mexico was already addressing migrant caravans and had no intention of closing its border. While the status of threatened tariffs on Mexico and Canada remains unclear, Trump framed the discussion as a success, suggesting the threat of tariffs alone was an effective policy tool. Illegal immigration across the southern border has recently decreased, a trend attributed in part to increased Mexican cooperation. The potential implementation of tariffs could negatively impact the USMCA trade agreement.
Read the original article here
Trump recently spoke with Mexico’s president, and afterward, he claimed an agreement had been reached to effectively shut down the border. This announcement immediately raises questions, particularly given the complexities of border control and the ongoing challenges related to drug trafficking.
The assertion of a closed border seems overly simplistic, given that drug cartels operate with significant power and influence within Mexico. Confronting these cartels directly presents a serious national security risk for Mexico. Therefore, a complete border closure appears unlikely, considering the inherent difficulties in fully controlling the movement of people and goods along such a lengthy border.
This situation echoes previous instances where Trump has made claims that weren’t fully supported by facts. Recall his earlier attempts to have the Mexican government pay for a border wall. These efforts were unsuccessful, yet Trump still tried to present them in a positive light for the public. His current claim about border closure could potentially follow a similar pattern, aiming to portray a victory even without substantial evidence.
There’s a possibility that Trump’s claim is entirely opportunistic, capitalizing on broader economic trends. As global economies recover from the pandemic, migration levels naturally tend to decrease. This could mean that a reduction in border crossings, regardless of any specific policy changes, would be attributed to Trump’s actions by his supporters. Such a scenario would allow him to claim credit for developments that were already underway.
It’s worth noting the timing of this alleged agreement. Trump isn’t currently the president. His actions in contacting a foreign leader and negotiating policy independently raise questions about potential protocol violations. It seems out of place for a former president to engage in this type of international diplomacy. The fact he made this claim with an upcoming election suggests a possible strategic move to influence the political climate.
The lack of corroboration from Mexico’s president adds further doubt to Trump’s claim. Given past instances of Trump’s public pronouncements being challenged by other parties involved, it is crucial to approach this claim with skepticism. Without independent confirmation, it’s difficult to assess the truth of the matter. The possibility that the conversation took a drastically different path than portrayed should also be considered.
The assertion that this single phone call resulted in a complete border closure lacks plausibility. Significant issues, such as drug trafficking and the complexities of managing a border, cannot be resolved with a simple conversation. Such a solution would be a drastic oversimplification of the problem, failing to consider the long-standing challenges involved.
Furthermore, Trump’s past record shows a pattern of making bold promises, often followed by inconsistent action. The border wall, for example, was a central campaign promise, but it was never fully completed. Considering this history, it’s prudent to approach this latest claim with a healthy dose of skepticism. He consistently downplays or ignores issues he doesn’t want to deal with, and this could be another example of that.
The focus on border closure also overshadows the equally critical issue of fentanyl trafficking. The fact that the claim focuses solely on closing the border, while neglecting the complex problems of drug trafficking, is significant. A comprehensive solution would involve addressing both aspects, not simply closing the border.
The entire situation is further complicated by the fact that similar actions were already underway, even prior to Trump’s alleged phone call. This raises the question of whether Trump is attempting to take credit for policies he had no direct role in implementing.
Ultimately, Trump’s claim of an agreement to effectively close the border warrants careful consideration and independent verification. The lack of corroborating evidence, coupled with his past statements, makes it prudent to approach this announcement with a significant degree of caution and skepticism. Given the lack of official confirmation, there’s considerable reason to question the accuracy and even the existence of such an agreement.