Canadian snowbirds love Palm Springs. But Trump is making them say: Sorry! We’re leaving

By Hailey Branson-Potts, Staff Writer for Los Angeles Times

This is an abridged article.

Since his reelection in November, Trump has upended the typically friendly relationship between the U.S. and its northern neighbor. He has mocked Canada by calling it America’s “51st state” and repeatedly referred to former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “governor.” And he has threatened to use “economic force” to annex the country, whose population of 40 million is about the same as California’s.

Trump in February invoked emergency powers to justify stiff new tariffs on Canadian imports, arguing in an executive order that the trafficking of illegal drugs — namely, fentanyl — across the northern border constituted a dire threat to American security.

After Trump’s separate 25% tariff on imported automobiles went into effect last week, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who called the levies a “direct attack” on his country, slapped a 25% retaliatory levy on vehicles imported from the United States.

In Palm Springs, the snowbirds who were already here before Trump took office are leaving for the season. The question is: Will they return?

Two Canadian airlines this spring ended their seasonal service to and from Palm Springs International Airport earlier than initially planned, airport spokesman Jake Ingrassia said in a statement to The Times.

“Flair Airlines and WestJet have slightly shortened their seasonal service to Vancouver and Winnipeg, respectively,” Ingrassia said. “The airlines have advised the airport that these adjustments are in response to the current operating environment and shifts in demand.”

Kenny Cassady, director of business development for Acme House Co., which manages vacation rental properties in Palm Springs, said Canadians often book stays of one to three months a full year in advance, returning to the same properties annually.

“But when it comes to rebooking for next year? They’re just declining,” said Cassady, who also is a board member for Visit Greater Palm Springs, a tourism marketing agency for the Coachella Valley.

Trump’s Destruction of the Country’s Economy

Tariffs Are a Self-Inflicted Economic Catastrophe that will make America hated by most of the world. Russia and its allies are loving this.

Dow drops over 1,400 as US stocks lead worldwide sell-off after Trump’s tariffs ignite

Financial markets around the world are reeling Thursday following President Donald Trump’s latest and most severe set of tariffs, and the U.S. stock market is taking the worst of it so far.

The S&P 500 was down 4% in midday trading, more than other major stock markets, and at its bottom in the morning was on track for its worst day since COVID struck in 2020. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 1,412 points, or 3.3%, as of 11:50 a.m. Eastern time, and the Nasdaq composite was 5.1% lower.

 In President Donald Trump’s first term, apparel and footwear makers shifted manufacturing out of China to avoid tariffs. Now they’re being pummeled as Trump targets the same nations they moved to. 

A tariff of 46% on goods from Vietnam is particularly painful for companies such as Nike Inc., Adidas AG and Lululemon Athletica Inc., which produce significant amounts of merchandise in the country. Levies of 49% on Cambodia and more than 30% on Indonesia and Thailand are also problematic. Trump says the tariffs will push companies to relocate manufacturing to the US. 

America’s biggest trading partners promised retaliation for President Donald Trump’s massive tariff announcement. The first major response has come in — from Canada.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said that Canada will levy a 25% counter-tariff on vehicles imported from the United States that are not compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in response to US tariffs on Canadian vehicles and auto parts that went into effect today.

“As I told President Trump during our call last week, Canada will respond to the US auto tariffs, and today, I’m announcing that the Government of Canada will be responding by matching the US approach with 25% tariffs on all vehicles imported from the United States that are not compliant with CUSMA, our North American Free Trade Agreement,” Carney told reporters in Ottawa, using the Canadian acronym for the USMCA.

The prime minister said there were no talks scheduled between him and Trump, but he would talk to the US president again “if appropriate.” Carney also said Canada’s counter-tariffs would not affect auto parts.

Though Carney said Canada still considers the US an ally in defense and security, his country “must be looking elsewhere to expand our trade, to build our economy and to protect our sovereignty.”

Where will all this end? Look for a World Wide RECESSION.

Freedom of Speech and Thought under Attack

Speaking your mind shouldn’t cost you your job, your education, or your rights. But right now, that’s exactly what’s happening all across America.

Example One:

President Trump on Thursday renewed a call to defund NPR and PBS a day after top executives from the public broadcasters faced an intense grilling from GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“NPR and PBS, two horrible and completely biased platforms (Networks!), should be DEFUNDED by Congress, IMMEDIATELY,” Trump wrote late Wednesday on Truth Social. “Republicans, don’t miss this opportunity to rid our Country of this giant SCAM, both being arms of the Radical Left Democrat Party. JUST SAY NO AND, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”

Example Two:

Students at public colleges and universities are protected by the First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. Private schools do not have that protection.                         

Columbia University, officially Columbia University in the City of New York, is a private Ivy League research university in New York City. 

On 8 March, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia University, as he was returning from dinner with his wife in New York. The agents said the state department had revoked his student visa and green card, though he had never been accused of, let alone convicted for, a crime. He was held in detention in New Jersey, then transferred to Louisiana. He has still not been accused a crime.

Nevertheless, Donald Trump’s state department, headed by Marco Rubio, seeks to deport him under a provision of federallaw that gives him the power to deport someone if their presence in the country is deemed to “have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”. Khalil’s crime? He was a lead organizer of Columbia’s protests for Palestinian rights.

“Who has the right to have rights? It is certainly not the humans crowded into the cells here,” Khalil, a Palestinian raised in exile in a Syrian refugee camp, wrote in a letter proclaiming his status as a “political prisoner”. He is the one of the most prominent targets of a chilling federal crackdown over pro-Palestinian advocacy in the US, particularly on college campuses. And he is one of the most forceful voices in The Encampments, a new documentary on the campus movement for Palestine that has drawn ire from across the US political spectrum, in particular the right.

Example Three:

The nation’s legal profession is being split between those that want to fight back against President Trump’s attacks on the industry and those that prefer to engage in the art of the deal.

Two big firms sued the Trump administration on Friday, seeking to stop executive orders that could impair their ability to represent clients. The lawsuits filed by Jenner & Block and WilmerHale highlight how some elite firms are willing to fight Mr. Trump’s campaign targeting those he doesn’t like, while others, like Paul Weiss and Skadden, have cut deals to appease the president.

In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has issued similarly styled executive orders against firms that he perceives as enemies and threats to national security. The orders could create an existential crisis for firms because they would strip lawyers of security clearances, bar them from entering federal buildings and discourage federal officials from interacting with the firms.

From The Atlantic

I subscribed to The Atlantic.

Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal

The administration has downplayed the importance of the text messages inadvertently sent to The Atlantic’s editor in chief. By Jeffrey Goldberg and Shane Harris

So, about that Signal chat.

On Monday, shortly after we published a story about a massive Trump-administration security breach, a reporter asked the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, why he had shared plans about a forthcoming attack on Yemen on the Signal messaging app. He answered, “Nobody was texting war plans. And that’s all I have to say about that.”

At a Senate hearing yesterday, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliffe, were both asked about the Signal chat, to which Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently invited by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. “There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group,” Gabbard told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Ratcliffe said much the same: “My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.”

President Donald Trump, asked yesterday afternoon about the same matter, said, “It wasn’t classified information.”

These statements presented us with a dilemma. In The Atlantic’s initial story about the Signal chat—the “Houthi PC small group,” as it was named by Waltz—we withheld specific information related to weapons and to the timing of attacks that we found in certain texts. As a general rule, we do not publish information about military operations if that information could possibly jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel. That is why we chose to characterize the nature of the information being shared, not specific details about the attacks.

The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump—combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts—have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.

Experts have repeatedly told us that use of a Signal chat for such sensitive discussions poses a threat to national security. As a case in point, Goldberg received information on the attacks two hours before the scheduled start of the bombing of Houthi positions. If this information—particularly the exact times American aircraft were taking off for Yemen—had fallen into the wrong hands in that crucial two-hour period, American pilots and other American personnel could have been exposed to even greater danger than they ordinarily would face. The Trump administration is arguing that the military information contained in these texts was not classified—as it typically would be—although the president has not explained how he reached this conclusion.

Yesterday, we asked officials across the Trump administration if they objected to us publishing the full texts. In emails to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, and the White House, we wrote, in part: “In light of statements today from multiple administration officials, including before the Senate Intelligence Committee, that the information in the Signal chain about the Houthi strike is not classified, and that it does not contain ‘war plans,’ The Atlantic is considering publishing the entirety of the Signal chain.”

We sent our first request for comment and feedback to national-security officials shortly after noon, and followed up in the evening after most failed to answer.

Late yesterday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emailed a response: “As we have repeatedly stated, there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat. However, as the CIA Director and National Security Advisor have both expressed today, that does not mean we encourage the release of the conversation. This was intended to be a an [sic] internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed. So for those reason [sic] — yes, we object to the release.” (The Leavitt statement did not address which elements of the texts the White House considered sensitive, or how, more than a week after the initial air strikes, their publication could have bearing on national security.)

A CIA spokesperson asked us to withhold the name of John Ratcliffe’s chief of staff, which Ratcliffe had shared in the Signal chain, because CIA intelligence officers are traditionally not publicly identified. Ratcliffe had testified earlier yesterday that the officer is not undercover and said it was “completely appropriate” to share their name in the Signal conversation. We will continue to withhold the name of the officer. Otherwise, the messages are unredacted.

As we wrote on Monday, much of the conversation in the “Houthi PC small group” concerned the timing and rationale of attacks on the Houthis, and contained remarks by Trump-administration officials about the alleged shortcomings of America’s European allies. But on the day of the attack—Saturday, March 15—the discussion veered toward the operational.

Listen: Jeffrey Goldberg on the group chat that broke the internet

Trump consistently frames policy around ‘fairness,’ trading on American frustration

A long article worth reading.

By Kevin Rector, Staff Writer for the Los Angeles Times

In a sit-down interview with Fox News last month, President Trump and his billionaire “efficiency” advisor Elon Musk framed new tariffs on foreign trading partners as a simple matter of fairness.

“I said, ‘Here’s what we’re going to do: reciprocal. Whatever you charge, I’m charging,’” Trump said of a conversation he’d had with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “I’m doing that with every country.”

“It seems fair,” Musk said.

Trump laughed. “It does,” he said.

“It’s like, fair is fair,” said Musk, the world’s richest person.

The moment was one of many in recent months in which Trump and his allies have framed his policy agenda around the concept of fairness — which experts say is a potent political message at a time when many Americans feel thwarted by inflation, high housing costs and other systemic barriers to getting ahead.

“Trump has a good sense for what will resonate with folks, and I think we all have a deep sense of morality — and so we all recognize the importance of fairness,” said Kurt Gray, a psychology professor at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and author of the book “Outraged: Why We Fight About Morality and Politics and How to Find Common Ground.”

“At the end of the day,” Gray said, “we’re always worried about not getting what we deserve.”

In addition to his “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” for tariffs, Trump has cited fairness in his decisions to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, ban transgender athletes from competing in sports, scale back American aid to embattled Ukraine and pardon his supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump has invoked fairness in meetings with a host of world leaders, including Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. He has suggested that his crusade to end “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs is all about fairness, couched foreign aid and assistance to undocumented immigrants as unfair to struggling American taxpayers, and attacked the Justice Department, the media and federal judges who have ruled against his administration as harboring unfair biases against him.

Trump and Musk — through his “Department of Government Efficiency,” which is not a U.S. agency — have orchestrated a sweeping attack on the federal workforce largely by framing it as a liberal “deep state” that either works in unfair ways against the best interests of conservative Americans, or doesn’t work at all thanks to lopsided work-from-home allowances.

“It’s unfair to the millions of people in the United States who are, in fact, working hard from job sites and not from their home,” Trump said.

In a Justice Department speech this month, Trump repeatedly complained about the courts treating him and his allies unfairly, and reiterated baseless claims that recent elections have been unfair to him, too.

“We want fairness in the courts. The courts are a big factor. The elections, which were totally rigged, are a big factor,” Trump said. “We have to have honest elections. We have to have borders and we have to have courts and law that’s fair, or we’re not going to have a country.”

Before a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte this month, Trump complained — not for the first time — about European countries not paying their “fair share” to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression, and the U.S. paying too much.

“We were treated very unfairly, as we always are by every country,” Trump said.

Almost exclusively, Trump’s invocations of fairness cast him, his supporters or the U.S. as victims, and his critics and political opponents as the architects and defenders of a decidedly unfair status quo that has persisted for generations. And he has repeatedly used that framework to justify actions that he says are aimed at tearing down that status quo — even if it means breaching norms or bucking the law.

Trump has suggested that unfavorable media coverage of him is unfair and therefore “illegal,” and that judges who rule against him are unfair liberal activists who should be impeached.

The politics of feeling heard

Of course, grievance politics are not new — nor is the importance of “fairness” in democratic governance. In 2006, the late Harvard scholar of political behavior Sidney Verba wrote of fairness being important in various political regimes but “especially central in a democracy.”

Verba noted that fairness comes in different forms — including equal rights under the law, equal voice in the political sphere, and policies that result in equal outcomes for people. But the perception of fairness in a political system, he wrote, often comes down to whether people feel heard.

“Democracies are sounder when the reason why some lose does not rest on the fact that they are invisible to those who make decisions,” Verba wrote. “Equal treatment may be unattainable, but equal consideration is a goal worth striving for.”

According to several experts, Trump’s appeal is in part based on his ability to make average people feel heard, regardless of whether his policies actually speak to their needs.

Gray said there is “distributive fairness,” which asks, “Are you getting as much as you deserve?” and “procedural fairness,” which asks, “Are things being decided in a fair way? Did you get voice? Did you get input?”

One of Trump’s skills, Gray said, is using people’s inherent sense that there is a lack of distributive fairness in the country to justify policies that have little to do with such inequities, and to undermine processes that are in place to ensure procedural fairness, such as judicial review, but aren’t producing the outcomes he personally desires.

“What Trump does a good job at is blurring the line between rules you can follow or shouldn’t follow,” he said. “When he disobeys the rules and gets called out, he goes, ‘Well those moral rules are unjust.’”

People who voted for Trump and have legitimate feelings that things are unfair then give him the benefit of the doubt, Gray said, because he appears to be speaking their language — and on their behalf.

“He’s not just saying that it’s him. He’s saying it’s on behalf of the people he’s representing, and the people he’s representing do think things are unfair,” Gray said. “They’re not getting enough in their life, and they’re not getting their due.”

Lawrence Rosenthal, chair of the Center for Right-Wing Studies at UC Berkeley and author of “Empire of Resentment: Populism’s Toxic Embrace of Nationalism,” said Trump and his supporters have built him up as a leader “interested in fixing the unfairness to the working class.”

But that idea is premised on another notion, even more central to Trump’s persona, that there are “enemies” out there — Democrats, coastal elites, immigrants — who are the cause of that unfairness, Rosenthal said.

“He names enemies, and he’s very good at that — as all right-wing authoritarians are,” Rosenthal said.

Such politics are based on a concept known as “replacement theory,” which tells people to fear others because there are only so many resources to go around, Rosenthal said. The theory dovetails with the argument Trump often makes, that undocumented immigrants receiving jobs or benefits is an inherent threat to his MAGA base.

“The sense of dispossession is absolutely fundamental and has been for some time,” Rosenthal said.

John T. Woolley, co-director of the American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara, said Trump has “a remarkable capacity for constructing the world in a way that favors him” — even if that’s as the victim — and appears to be an “outlier” among presidents in terms of how often he focuses on fairness as a political motif.

“Certainly since his first term with impeachment, ‘the Russia hoax,’ ‘dishonest media,’ ‘fake news’ and then ‘weaponizing’ of justice — he’s constructed a kind of victim persona, in battle with the deep state, that is now really basic to his interaction with his core MAGA constituency,” Woolley said.

An idea for Democrats

In coming to terms with Trump’s win in November, Democrats have increasingly acknowledged his ability to speak to Americans who feel left behind — and started to pick up on fairness as a motif of their own, in part by zeroing in on mega-billionaire Musk.

In an interview with NPR last month, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) evoked the idea of unfairness in the system by saying American government is working for rich people like Musk, but not for everyone else. “Everything feels increasingly like a scam,” she said.

She and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have since embarked on a nationwide “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, where they have blasted Musk’s role in government and questioned how his actions, or those of Trump, have helped average Americans in the slightest.

“At the end of the day, the top 1% may have enormous wealth and power, but they are just 1%,” Sanders wrote Friday on X. “When the 99% stand together, we can transform our country.”

Buy Canadian movement starts to take a sizable bite out of U.S. business

A man dressed as U.S. President Donald Trump poses for a photo near the White House in Washington on March 13. MICHAEL A. MCCOY/The New York Times News Service

The surge in patriotism among Canadian shoppers, fuelled by trade tensions with the United States, is already leaving a sizable mark on American business, early data from a variety of industries suggests.

U.S. tour operators are reporting booking declines of as much as 85 per cent, while American distilleries are losing major deals. Meanwhile, Canadian grocers are posting a bump in domestic product sales of up to 10 per cent.

Donald Trump’s jabs about annexation, along with a 25-per-cent levy on steel and aluminum from Canada and the U.S. President’s threats of a 25-per-cent tariff on most Canadian imports have prompted a rallying cry to “Buy Canadian” across this country.

While consumer boycotts – combined with government policy actions – are causing trouble south of the border, concerns are bubbling up about the toll on Canadian businesses, too.

“To use some of the words I hear from tour company members of the National Tour Association, the drop-off is ‘astronomical’ when speaking about Canadians booking group travel to the United States,” said Catherine Prather, president of the Kentucky-based organization, which specializes in group tours.

The exchange rate and fluctuating trade policies have had a “resounding effect” on Canadians’ travel cancellations, she said. But tour operators shared that the rhetoric about making Canada the 51st state is “perhaps even worse,” and in many cases, has been the “deciding factor” for customers.

Traffic across some major border crossings in tourism states such as New York has dropped by 12 per cent in the first two weeks of February alone, said Corey Fram, director at the Thousand Islands International Tourism Council. He cited data provided to him by the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association for border crossings on the Thousand Islands Bridge between Alexandria Bay, N.Y., and southeastern Ontario.

Statistics Canada data also show that Canadian automobile trips to the U.S. are plummeting. About 1.2 million return trips were made into Canada by Canadians in February – a 23-per-cent drop from that period a year ago.

The U.S. Travel Association warned in February that even a 10 per cent drop in Canadian visitors would lead to more than $2.1-billion in spending losses and a threat to 14,000 jobs.

The Buy Canadian movement is also hitting the grocery aisles. Per Bank, CEO of Canada’s largest food retailer, Loblaw Cos. Ltd., said in February that the company saw about a 10-per-cent uptick in sales for Canadian products in preceding weeks.

Pierre Cléroux, vice-president of research and chief economist at the Business Development Bank of Canada, told The Globe and Mail that if every Canadian household redirected $25 a week from foreign products to Canadian ones, it would boost GDP by 0.7 per cent and create 60,000 jobs.

According to his modelling, if Canadians also cut international travel by 10 per cent and spent that money domestically, the combined effect would raise GDP by 1 per cent and create 74,000 jobs.

Another U.S. industry reeling from the “Buy Canadian” movement and its manifestation in public policy – including provincial moves to take American booze off the shelves – is American distilling.

Canada is a critical market for U.S. spirits, making up “a little over 31 per cent of all U.S. exports” of distilled spirits in 2024, said Stephen Gould, a Colorado-based alcohol trade consultant at Consulting Alchemist Ltd and former distillery owner.

In addition to bourbon, Canada is a crucial market for U.S. whisky and other spirits as well as wine and beer. Bartenders, waitstaff and retail clerks in the U.S. are among those who will face significant layoffs if trade tensions continue, said Mr. Gould.

“The American industry is suffering,” he said.

Victor Yarbrough, co-founder of Brough Brothers,Kentucky’s first Black-owned distillery, said his company was “deeply disappointed” after losing a lucrative deal to sell its bourbon to New Brunswick Liquor due to trade tensions. The deal was projected to increase company sales by 2.55 per cent in 2025.

“Canada’s a large export market for us,” said Mr. Yarbrough. “Let’s figure out ways to move forward and amicably.”

Abridged article from the Canadian Globe and Mail.

Trump Does Not Have Absolute Power

Did Donald Trump have a face to face meeting with Chief Justice John Roberts or was it a telephone call? Either way Trump was apparently told he does not have absolute power over everything.

The consequence was Trump administration reinstated thousands of probationary federal workers. The Trump administration is making the move after several court orders ruled that the firings were not legal.

The decision reinstates at least 24,500 recently fired probationary workers following a pair of orders from federal judges last week that found the terminations pushed by President Donald Trump were illegal.

The reinstatements, spanning 18 departments, are outlined in a filing Monday by the Department of Justice in federal court in Maryland after a judge asked for a report on efforts to reinstate the employees.

The separate declarations from Trump officials within each of the departments offer the most detailed public account yet of the administration’s firing of recently hired or promoted probationary workers as part of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency’s push to drastically cut the federal workforce.

Here are the tallies of recently fired probationary workers, by department, the Trump administration says it is working to reinstate:

  1. Environmental Protection Agency: 419
  2. Department of Energy: 555
  3. Department of Commerce: 791
  4. Department of Homeland Security: 310
  5. Department of Transportation: 775
  6. Department of Education: 65
  7. Department of Housing and Urban Development: 299
  8. Department of Interior: 1,710
  9. Department of Labor: 167
  10. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: 117
  11. Small Business Administration: 298
  12. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.: 156
  13. Human Capital and Talen Management: 270
  14. General Services Administration: 366
  15. Treasury Department: 7,613 (including 7,315 IRS employees)
  16. Department of Agriculture: 5,714
  17. Department of Veterans Affairs: 1,683
  18. Department of Health and Human Services: 3,248

Conservatives have a 6-3 advantage on the high court and Trump himself nominated three of the current justices. The court has frequently sided with him in major cases, most notably the decision last year to grant former presidents wide immunity from criminal prosecution for their official actions. But in a series of emergency orders since Trump’s return to the White House, the court has preliminarily ruled against him.

At the same time, Trump appeared especially eager to woo Roberts during his joint address to Congress earlier this month.

US green card holders, student visa holders can be deported

Can a green card holder be deported from the United States? The recent arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist involved in organising campus protests over the Israel-Hamas conflict at Columbia University in New York City, has raised questions about the protections foreign students and green card holders have against deportation from the US.

A green holder and student visa holders have been given a privilege. They have no rights

A green card holder has lawful permanent resident status, allowing them to live and work in the US indefinitely. However, this status is not absolute, and deportation remains a possibility under certain circumstances. 

Rights and responsibilities of green card holders 

According to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), green card holders have the right to:

< Work in any legal job they qualify for, except some roles restricted to US citizens for security reasons

< Be protected by all US laws, including state and local regulations 

They are also subject to specific responsibilities: 

< Obey all US and local laws

< File income tax returns and report income to the Internal Revenue Service and state tax authorities

< Support the democratic form of government (without voting in elections)

< Register with the Selective Service if they are male and between 18 and 25 years old

< Work in any legal job they qualify for, except some roles restricted to US citizens for security reasons

< Be protected by all US laws, including state and local regulations 

 Can green card holders be deported? 

Yes, they can. 

“Generally, green card holders have the same First Amendment rights as US citizens. Constitutionally protected speech, including peaceful protest, would not normally be grounds for cancelling a green card. Green cards are typically revoked for serious crimes or other obvious violations,” Russell A Stamets, partner at Circle of Counsels told Business Standard. 

“While they have strong legal protections, such as the right to a hearing before an immigration judge and the ability to appeal deportation orders, they can still be removed for reasons like aggravated felonies, fraud, national security threats, or abandoning their residency by staying outside the US for too long,” Aurelia Menezes, partner at King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates and Attorneys, explained to Business Standard.

As protests over the Gaza conflict ignited rancor and division at Columbia University last year, one student stood out for his role as a negotiator representing activists in talks with the school officials who were desperate to achieve peace on campus.

Mahmoud Khalil, 30, emerged as a public face of students opposed to the war, leading demonstrations and granting interviews. He delivered a message that his side viewed as measured and responsible but that has been branded by some, including the Trump administration, as antisemitic.

Mr. Khalil has been involved in demonstrations as recently as January, when four masked demonstrators entered a class on the history of Israel taught by an Israeli professor at Columbia to accuse the school of “normalizing genocide.” Videos of an unmasked Mr. Khalil at a related sit-in were soon circulated on social media among critics of Columbia’s protest movement, with some calling for him to be deported.

Over the weekend, Mr. Khalil was at the center of the news again. He was arrested by federal immigration officials in a drastic escalation of President Trump’s crackdown against what he has called antisemitic campus activity. Mr. Khalil, a permanent resident of the United States, had been living in Columbia’s student housing when he was detained and then transferred to the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Jena, La.

A green card holder and student visa holders have been given a privilege. They have no rights. Deportation for bad behavior by ICE is a consequence of that behavior. Deporting Mr. Khalil and others who are guests in this country is the right thing to do.

Canada and Greenland

Yes, I was born in Canada. My parents moved to the United States when I was 6 months old. As a boy I visited Winnipeg every summer until I was 10 years old to see my grandparents. I have cousins in Winnipeg, Vancouver, and other cities in Canada. I have visited Canada many times as an adult. Toronto and Vancouver are fun places to tour.

That being said, I am concerned about Canada’s future.

It appears Donald Trump is serious about annexing Canada and Greenland. The difference between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is that Trump wants to accomplish his goals without a war.

Earlier this month, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly said of President Donald Trump, “What he wants is to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that’ll make it easier to annex us.”

Trudeau’s accusation was extraordinary and unprecedented. Here was the leader of Canada, one of America’s closest and longest-standing allies, accusing the U.S. president of engaging in economic warfare. More and more, however, it seems Trudeau wasn’t making this argument up. The evidence is piling up that Trump has declared economic war on Canada for the express purpose of making our Northern neighbor the 51st state.

Trump first referred to Canada as the 51st state in a December 2024 meeting with Trudeau. At the time, the Canadian Prime Minister assumed Trump was joking. But then, in January, he said it again publicly, this time threatening the use of “economic force” to pursue annexation. In addition, he began referring to Trudeau as “Governor” rather than “Prime Minister.”

By this point, one could easily chalk this up to Trumpian bluster. He couldn’t possibly be serious about annexing Canada? Could he?

But, two weeks after Trump’s inauguration, a private call between him and Trudeau, which was supposed to be about tariffs, took an odd turn. According to The New York Times, Trump told “Trudeau that he did not believe that the treaty that demarcates the border between the two countries was valid and that he wants to revise the boundary.” He also mentioned revisiting long-standing treaties between the U.S. and Canada regarding the sharing of lakes and rivers.

Even the Canadians were taken aback by Trump’s statement — and it slowly began to dawn on them that perhaps the president was serious (or as serious as one can be about an insane notion like the U.S. annexing Canada).

Publicly, Trump wouldn’t let the matter die. In an interview broadcast before the Super Bowl, on February 9, Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier his plans to annex Canada were a “real thing.” And to magnify Canada’s economic vulnerability, Trump told reporters that Canada was “not viable as a country” without U.S. trade. 

The problem for Canada is that Trump isn’t wrong on this front. Canada is so dependent on cross-border trade that if the U.S. were to turn the screws on The Great White North it could crater Canada’s economy. 

In the current context of the emerging trade war between the U.S. and Canada, it seems more than reasonable to believe that this is precisely Trump’s intention. 

Consider for a moment how this trade war has unfolded. When Trump first declared his intention to slap tariffs on Canada, he used the smuggling of fentanyl across the Canadian border as a justification (never mind that 19 kilograms of fentanyl came across the Canadian border last year, compared to 9,600 kilograms that crossed the U.S.-Mexico border). After Trudeau reminded Trump of Canada’s plan for slowing the smuggling of fentanyl, which was introduced late last year, he backed down.

But then last week, Trump returned to the trade spat with Canada, but this time blamed Canada because of its protectionist trade policies on dairy, lumber and banking. After Ontario’s premier, Doug Ford, announced a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to Michigan, Minnesota and New York, in response, Trump upped the ante announcing a new 25% tariff on Canada’s exports of steel and aluminum (which is in addition to already planned tariffs on steel and aluminum).

In announcing the new tariffs, Trump didn’t mention fentanyl as a justification, but instead wrote on TruthSocial that “the only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State. This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear.” In a follow-up post, he wondered why the U.S. “allow(s) another Country to supply us with electricity, even for a small area?”

Trump’s zigzagging has left markets and the business community flummoxed. For Canadians, the confusion is even worse. How can they end these trade tensions if the reason Trump is slapping tariffs on their country keeps changing?

But perhaps the obvious answer is staring us in the face, and we’re all too dumbfounded to acknowledge it. Trump has been remarkably consistent in stating that Canada should become America’s 51st state — he has said this repeatedly for months now. Moreover, he has openly espoused using U.S. economic power to achieve that goal — and is doing precisely that. 

Just so we’re clear, this is not a Trump-only phenomenon. Yesterday, when asked if the U.S. still considers Canada a “close ally,” White House press secretary Katherine Leavitt said that Canada would “benefit greatly” from joining the United States and pointed to its high cost of living as a reason for surrendering sovereignty.  

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick sounded a similar theme, noting that “Canada is gonna have to work with us to really integrate their economy, and as the president said, they should consider the amazing advantages of being the 51st state.”

In recent days, the Trump administration has further imposed its will on Canada by requiring Canadians who visit the country for more than 30 days to register with the U.S. government. 

The first 51 days of Trump’s presidency have been, for lack of a better word, an odyssey. Crazy has been dropped on top of more crazy. But  in the year 2025, an American president, with no pushback from his Cabinet or Congress, has declared economic war on our closest neighbor to annex its land (which is larger than America’s) and wants to make its 40 million citizens part of the United States. This is the craziest notion of all.

The first three paragraphs of this posting are my words. The rest of this article was originally published on MSNBC.com