Posted on 05/19/2016 11:56:30 AM PDT by Will88
Free Republic was ahead of the curve on globalization and free trade. And support of Trump. Free Republic has a lot of credibility now.
The virtual wall was stupid when proposed. Even dumber since never finished but lots spent on it
This is the essence of one possible formula:
- Sum A: The annual amount of any “assistance” funds the U.S. government may pay to Mexico for any reason.
- Sum B: A reasonably calculated annual amount the U.S. currently incurs to police its southern border and waters. It seems clear there is no expectation this amount will decline in the near term.
The total of A and B would be for Mexico’s account. Deductions from that sum would consist of:
- The annual cost for the U.S. to assure Mexico was providing reasonably effective control of its border. This would include the cost of mounted patrols, Coast Guard patrols, the cost of citizen assistance, etc. It is intended this amount would be less than Sum B above and would at the first level reflect the cost (in U.S. terms) of Mexico’s efforts.
- A “bounty” amount for each illegal alien apprehended by state or federal agencies that reflects “handling” costs and the cost of returning same to Mexico (regardless of nationality).
- Costs incurred by the U.S. to provide new welfare (medical, etc.) to illegal aliens present in the U.S after a certain date.
It may be that Trump was correct when he stated that Mexico would pay for “the wall”.
“I think we should put back in place what George W had in place and refine it until it works perfectly.”
George W didn’t build a fence- he simply squandered money on a pretend ‘virtual’ fence.
Dubya had absolutely no intention of building a fence that worked. He was and is an amnesty pusher.
Of course, the biggest problem of all is that we haven’t had a president who wanted to enforce the border for several decades. I’m sure the BP could do a much more effective job if they were allowed to decide how to do their job. But it’s been said often that Obama has removed most of them from the border and those still there are a welcoming committee for all the unaccompanied ‘children’.
But if an effective physical barrier were in place, at least it would still have some effect no matter who was president.
The voters will have to stop electing members of Congress and presidents who will not enforce the law. They’ll have to make immigration a vote deciding issue every election to bring about any long term change. Maybe Trump will be the first step toward that.
Calm down.
No one is picking on Boeing.
It’s our doofus, two-faced, criminal politicians who deserve our scorn.
Just build the da g wall!
With $20 billion plus being sent back to Mexico annually by Mexicans working in the US, it would take a lot of disincentives to get them to do any border enforcement from their side. And with all the corruption and infiltration of the drug cartels into Mexican law enforcement and government, I don’t know that there is any formula that would cause them to prevent their citizens from entering the US illegally.
Illegal drugs are a major Mexican job creator and export to the US. Probably also provides several billion per year in income.
There would have to be some dramatic reforms in Mexico.
You listen for them being dug or used. Locate them and destroy them.
Wait until they are full of Beaners then gas them, drown them, blow them up.
Drop a few hundred rattle snakes in it. blockquote>
“Wait until they are full of Beaners then gas them, drown them, blow them up.”
Or,,,, Drill into them, and pump in high pressure black smoke. That’ll find the entrances and exits without killing anyone. Then destroy the tunnels!
You raise several good points. I believe Trump has already talked about a money transfer tax and such should certainly be installed regardless of any other action.
As for the drug cartels, the formula that would work is the one that puts more money in the pockets of law enforcement and government officials. Whether the formula I proposed or one like it would pay more than the drug cartels is another question only because we do not know how much is going into those pockets.
Notice the formula pays them in U.S. dollars for an effort they would make at local costs. The effort would be consistent with local practises and their constitution, not ours.
The formula would be installed on as close to a "take it or leave it" basis as one can get without being offensive. And, it importantly puts at risk any other monies we may give Mexico unrelated to border issues.
Exactly. The G.I. in the photo upthread wasn't looking for Viet Cong, he was looking for evidence of snakes.
Okay, we do need a physical fence. But there is great merit in the idea of a virtual fence.
There needs to be sufficient staffing to interdict the invaders.
Never calmer. Please re-read my post. I have no love for Boeing.
Nappypants has my scorn.
We don't provide any significant USG aid to Mexico, which is a fairly wealthy country compared to the rest of the world. It has a $2.2 trillion GDP economy, the 12th largest in the world. What is significant is the $23 billion a year that is sent from Mexicans in the US to Mexico. It is about equal to Mexico's revenue from oil sales.
- Sum B: A reasonably calculated annual amount the U.S. currently incurs to police its southern border and waters. It seems clear there is no expectation this amount will decline in the near term.
No doubt billions, but less than $10 billion a year. This does not include the billions spent on the War on Drugs, the human costs of drugs on our people, the millions of Americans who have been victims of criminal alien crime including tens of thousands who have been murdered.
We are Mexico's biggest trading partner. 80% of Mexico's exports go to the US (345 billion annually) and 48% of their imports come from the US, about $215 billion a year. We have lots of leverage in trade and remittances,
We can easily have Mexico pay for the costs of the wall if we have the political will to do so.
Your take-away, based on facts and logic, is very encouraging - We have lots of leverage in trade and remittances, We can easily have Mexico pay for the costs of the wall if we have the political will to do so.
Mexico would certainly balk at any proposal that required it to pay for the entire cost of a wall; thus, a formula based on monetary factors that provides an incentive for an appropriate amount of action by Mexico clearly remains the best answer.
Federal politicians from both sides of the aisle with their welcoming gifts at the border and their express or implied approval of sanctuary cities have obviously failed us. It appears we need a proven deal-maker that can keep our nation's best interests as the bottom line.
There is such a figure currently on the national scene, of course, and he claims he has the will to make such a deal.
There are plenty of ways to get Mexico to pay for the wall without getting their agreement to do so.
Yes Mexico can be leveraged to pay for the wall. It is true we don’t give Mexico much in traditional foreign aid. We do intermittently give them large sums of money for their assistance against drug smuggling and border security. How has that worked out for us so far? We can use that money to secure the border ourselves.
We have trade leverage as another poster pointed out.
The savings to us after the border is secured and illegals are deported will be astronomical.
Vote Trump!
Kobach is a smart guy, but that low hanging fruit would not be available for very long. One can immediately think of a number of maneuvers that would avoid such tax.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.