To President Trump! September 23, 2025 As I explained yesterday, Trump's tariffs, if combined with balanced countervailing duties, would be an export-promoting policy. Much of the U.S. trade deficit would be eliminated. A U.S. federal appeals court ruled Trump's tariffs, including the reciprocal tariffs, illegal. Even the Supreme Court is said to have difficulty overturning the ruling.

 To President Trump!

September 23, 2025

As I explained yesterday, Trump's tariffs, if they incorporate balanced counter-vailing duties, would be an export-promoting policy. Much of the U.S. trade deficit would be eliminated.

A U.S. federal appeals court ruled that Trump's tariffs, including the reciprocal tariffs, are illegal. Even the Supreme Court is said to have difficulty overturning the ruling.

While Trump appeals, he should get Congress to pass a new "Trump tariff bill" that incorporates a "balanced countervailing duty" system.

Many Democrats and Republicans oppose Trump's tariffs themselves. To per-suade them, a new "Trump tariff bill" that incorporates a "balanced countervail-ing duty" system is needed.

I used the example of Walmart to illustrate this point. A new law incorporating balanced countervailing duties should be enacted, allowing importers to zero out Trump tariffs through their own efforts.

U.S. importers should urge the Trump administration to enact a new law incor-porating balanced countervailing duties. U.S. importers should leverage their advantages as buyers.

Foreign exporters should make new proposals to U.S. importers. This means proposing to import U.S. products in parallel with exports.

This is easy to do through trading companies, but if a trading company is not available, exporters should develop procurement routes for agricultural and food products. Embassies in the U.S. should introduce U.S. export companies to these companies.

Trump has said that if companies don't want to pay the Trump tariffs, they should build factories and manufacture their products in the U.S. That's a great idea, but...

Foreign companies are considering building factories in the U.S., but the U.S. does not have "factory zones" where low-wage workers can live, like China and Mexico.

Without "factory zones" where low-wage workers can live, factories cannot be built in the U.S. We should create "special zones" where they can live and at-tract factories.

I have been suggesting that if the U.S. does not have "factory zones" where low-wage workers can live, like China and Mexico, then we should create them. That is the "special zones" proposal.

The location is on the Mexican border, where countless illegal immigrants are flocking. I have repeatedly proposed accepting them under the "status" of "temporary immigrants" and employing them as "low-wage workers."

Trump built a "wall" on the Mexican border. He should build "another wall," ac-cept illegal immigrants as "temporary immigrants," confine them in "special zones," and utilize them as "low-wage workers."

President Trump, let's create "special zones" on the Mexican border and create "factory zones" where "low-wage workers" can live. Then, illegal immigrants in the United States will move to the "special zones." Let's do it!

Part 1: Reference Materials

Trump Administration Opposes Reciprocal Tariffs, etc. "If Lost, We May Even Terminate the Agreement"

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20250904/k10014912321000.html

I'll write again tomorrow.

Yasuhiro Nagano (Japanese)

Part 2. "Immigration Control Act Violation Cases" "Weekday Edition".

"Everyone" in the "international community" please help!

First, please read about the "false accusation" of "aiding and abetting violation of immigration law" in 2010.

❤Click below to read the full article!

https://toworldmedia.blogspot.com/

"Chapter 1". The summary of the incident is as follows.

In the fall of 2008, my company (I am the president) promised to hire "Chinese people studying abroad on student visas". I "issued" them "employment contracts" stating that "LEFCO" would "employ" them when they graduated from university the following spring.

However, after that, the "Lehman Shock" occurred in 2008.

As a result, orders for "system development" from the following year onwards were "cancelled".

As a result, "LEFCO" "cancelled" the "employment" of "those who were scheduled to join the company" in 2009.

Therefore, "they" continued to work at the restaurants where they had worked part-time as students even after graduating in 2009.

In May 2010, the Chinese were arrested for "violating Article 70 of the Immigration Control Act" by "activities outside of the status of residence".

In June 2010, after their arrest, I and the Chinese person in charge of recruitment (KingGungaku) ​​were also arrested.

The reason was "crime of aiding and abetting" the Chinese for "violating Article 70 of the Immigration Control Act (activities outside the status of residence)".

<Reason for arrest> The prosecution said that I and KingGungaku giving the Chinese a "false employment contract" constituted "crime of aiding and abetting" under the Criminal Code.

"Chapter 2". Crimes in the judgment: (arbitrary and ridiculous)

The charges in the indictment are "the very provisions" of "Article 22-4-4 of the Immigration Control Act".

If a "status of residence" is obtained by submitting false documents, the Minister of Justice can revoke the "status of residence" at his "discretion". (And the person will be deported).

Therefore, even if a Chinese person submits "false documents," it is not a crime. It is not a crime to "aid" an innocent act.

The "reason for punishment" in the judgment:

1. The Chinese person obtained "resident status" by submitting a "false employment contract."

2. And they violated the Immigration Control Act (activities outside of their status of residence).

3. The Chinese person obtained "resident status" because "we" provided the Chinese person with a "false employment contract."

4. The Chinese person was able to "reside" in Japan because he obtained "resident status."

5. Because of that, the Chinese person was able to "work illegally."

6. Therefore, "we" who "provided" the Chinese person with a "false employment contract" were punished for "aiding" the Chinese person's "activities outside of their status of residence."

This is an "error" in the arbitrary "logic of law."

This reasoning is the "argument" that "when the wind blows, the barrel maker (profits)." This goes against "legal logic" even internationally.

The "criminal reason" in the indictment cannot be a crime because the provisions of the "Immigration Control Act," which is a "special law," take precedence over the "Criminal Code," which is a "general law."

My argument:

"1": The Immigration Control Act stipulates that the Minister of Justice will revoke the act of a foreigner who has obtained a residence status by submitting false documents (Immigration Control Act: Article 22-4-4, cancellation of residence status) through "administrative disposition." That's all.

"2": The Chinese who engaged in "unqualified work activities" are not guilty. The reason is that their "employers" have not been punished for the "crime of aiding and abetting illegal employment" under Article 73-2 of the Immigration Control Act.

Therefore, under the principle of "equality under the law," the Chinese are not guilty.

The Japanese government has punished "diplomats and Philippine embassy staff" for the exact same "criminal reason."

However, like the Chinese government, the Philippine government is also silent.

The rest will be published in the Saturday edition.

Part 3. Special Zone Construction. A new business model.

Special Zones accept refugees and immigrants as temporary immigrant workers and limit their residence to the special zone.

Developed countries use them as low-wage workers and achieve high economic growth again.

Refugees and immigrants can get jobs and live a hopeful, humane life.

Temporary immigrants are low-wage, but "food, clothing, shelter, medical expenses, and education are free."

NO2: https://world-special-zone.seesaa.net/

NO1: https://naganoopinion.blog.jp/

For NO4: to NO10:, please see the Sunday edition.

Thank you.

Yasuhiro Nagano