Posted on 04/05/2016 7:16:56 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Donald Trump would force Mexico to pay for a border wall by threatening to cut off billions of dollars in remittances sent by immigrants living in the U.S., according to a memo released by his campaign Tuesday.
The memo outlines how Trump would try to compel Mexico to pay for a 1,000-mile wall if he becomes president.
In his proposal, Trump threatened to change a rule under the USA PATRIOT Act, an anti-terrorism law, to cut off funds sent to Mexico through money transfers known as remittances. Trump said he would withdraw the threat if Mexico makes “a one-time payment of $5-10 billion” to finance the wall. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
I do like how you’re slicing up the apples and oranges here to make a fruit salad, it does make arguing your viewpoint a whole lot easier.
Since taxes would have to originate in the House, I’m pretty sure we can count on that not happening. And while I certainly believe that there’s plenty of judges out there who really do enjoy fruit salad, the appellate level really does have to concentrate on the plate before them.
Are you saying that every finding by the executive as to mundane matters such as countries which harbor terrorism, drug cartels and extensive tax evasion is subject to judicial review at their whim? Or would just apply to Mexico because a president wants Mexico to build a wall?
The holes in the argument are: Ample evidence exists in thousands (millions?) of court cases of money being transferred from the US to Mexico in support of drug trade. Ample evidence exists in the court records of hundreds if not thousands of cases where funds are being transferred to Mexico to evade US taxes. Ample evidence exists of widespread systematic terrorism in all parts of Mexico.
It is entirely a right and power of the executive to choose to ignore evidence or use evidence to support cutting off funds to Mexico (according to a very big body of rulings by SCOTUS.) And I don’t see five votes on SCOTUS to, even narrowing the ruling to specifically this one instance, to strip the executive of that power.
Roberts would say take it to congress, Thomas and Alito would side with the administration, Kennedy would berate the administration but still admit that it is theirs to determine. Even on the left side of the court, I think you’d have trouble finding votes saying that the administration must ignore ample evidence. Kagan and Sotomayor both believe in a strong executive, and deferral to judgment on mundane issues has been a continual theme in Ginsberg’s rulings. Bayer - well, anything and everything goes there, so call that the dissent.
I think it is you who is misunderstanding things. If the proposal was to forbid only the transmission of illegal wages to Mexico, you'd have a point. But that's not it.
The proposal is a blanket tax on all remittances to Mexico. That's the number people are using as the basis for the financing. And that would include all legal monies being sent by aliens that are here legally (as many agricultural workers are), as well as by U.S. citizens who send money to Mexico.
And if you're talking about anything other than a blanket tax/prohibition, then enforcing/regulating it is going to be impossible. Western Union and others simply do not have the ability to instantly verify whether the person attempting to send money is here legally or not. Heck, it can take employers six months to find that out. And even if you improved that somehow, the laundering would be simple. Far too many people to police it effectively.
Additionally, the statutes that do permit confiscation of illegal funds don't authorize a tax. So you'd have to take all the money that you identify as being from illegals. That amounts to a 1005 tax rate, which means that nobody is going to send money that way, which means that you won't raise any revenue.
Not sure why you guys just don't acknowledge that you need to have Congress act. It would be a hell of a lot less complicated to pass a specific law authorizing a tax on all remittances to Mexico.
Trump needs to look at what I’ve said for the past 10-15 years...All I have to do is add one line and it still works.
Beef up border security. Gotta do that anyway and he will.
Stop all tourist traffic into Mexico on a temporary basis, Americans are not safe south of the border.
Impose a high fee, maybe 25%, on all wire transfers of money into Mexico. (at this point, this would go to the wall fund.)
Stop all foreign aid to Mexico. And other countries allowing their people to come here illegally. They come through Mexico, so Mexico is allowing it.
Now you have Mexico’s attention. Show me a politician who doesn’t care about money...especially the loss of billions of it...and I’ll flap my arms and fly across the lake.
Tell them to stop illegal immigration, shut down the drug cartels, and pay for the wall and we’ll talk money.
I’ve been saying that for a long time, as a means to stop illegal immigration, all I had to do is add the line “and pay for the wall”.
Then enforce our damn immigration laws.
This is so easy to do, Unless you can Prove the “source” of the money, it is an ILL GOTTEN GAIN FROM A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE, THAT IS THE LAW TODAY, it will require nothing to enforce and the Courts can do NOTHING about it.
It is already ESTABLISHED LAW.
Just tax the ones coming out of LA and Orange County and you could pay for the wall
” But won’t Mexico just respond with taxes on the remittances of the millions of American laborers in Mexico who stand outside the Deposito de Casa stores every day, live 17 per home, and undercut the local Mexican wages?”
Bueno!
More than 10% of Mexico’s population is working and living in America...secondly the reason remittances are high is that these immigrants are earning more here in teh US than they could ever possibly earn in their native lands, which is why they have enough cash to remit back home to relatives.
Mexico is a narco state. It won’t pay for the wall because it enables the flow of drugs into the US. If that is made more difficult the Mexican politicos that supported such a policy would be found dead...
No. Not every finding, though I think your usage of "mundane" is kind of amusing. Barring all monetary transfers to another country is not exactly "mundane".
Or would it just apply to Mexico because a president wants Mexico to build a wall?
Yes. In this context, it reveals the justification to be a sham, and I'll get to that in a bit.
But okay, if you're going for the argument that Trump may have the power to bar all remittances to Mexico under the Patriot Act, then I assume you'd agree that he has to bar them -- he can't just pull an arbitrary, permanent tax number out of the air and confiscate that much, right? Nothing in the Patriot Act authorizes that, and his proposed amendments to $31 CFR 130 don't change that. So since he himself has seemingly abandoned that tax idea now, and is moving to stopping all transfers, let's move on....
The holes in the argument are: Ample evidence exists in thousands (millions?) of court cases of money being transferred from the US to Mexico in support of drug trade. Ample evidence exists in the court records of hundreds if not thousands of cases where funds are being transferred to Mexico to evade US taxes. Ample evidence exists of widespread systematic terrorism in all parts of Mexico.exactly what he said in that memo he released today.
And there's a couple of other problems with that memo. The first is that he claims that the "majority" of the $24B in remittances come from illegals. I'm not aware of the evidence for that at all. I have had some run-ins with migrant workers, and those folks, more so than the ones who are trying to stay here permanently, are the ones most likely to send money home. And a lot of those migrants are here legally, working under the protection of the MSPA and various temporary work visas.
The bigger problem is that he's going with the idea that people have to show lawful residence before money can be transferred to Mexico, and hoping to amend that CFR provision in the process. Apart from the obvious work-around of simply giving the money to someone here lawfully and having them send it (rendering the whole thing a fairly hollow threat), the illegals will just give the same bogus documents to Western Union that they give to employers.
Alternatively, if we really want to go through this exercise, then we're better off just going through Congress and imposing a tax on remittances. I don't have a problem with that.
Sure, you could go that route, and Presidential candidates all the time make promises that are based on getting Congress to act. But you are misstating the proposal: it is not a proposal to tax remittances; it’s a proposal to crack down on illegal remittances unless Mexico pays for the wall. As has been pointed out throughout this thread, the government has all kinds of tools to get at problemmatic transfers of funds. There’s nothing per se illegal about a terrorist sympathizer sending money to a terrorist in the Middle East either, but that’s obviously something we want to stop, and so there are tools to do so. If it’s possible to stop that, then why not this?
Again, you’re talking apples and oranges. The topic of the originating post is using the Patriot Act to cut off ALL transfers to Mexico after a determination by the administration of illegal activity which is consistent with the goals of the Patriot Act. (IE: Money laundering, tax evasion and drug cartel support.)
That turns off everything. No exemptions if you can prove that you live here legally and have a lawful job, etc. It does not involve applying taxes to money transfers, etc. It is a complete shut off of transfers, and exactly one of the defined empowerments in the Patriot Act.
But you’re more than welcome to continue arguing about your oranges which involves a tax system coming from the House that will never happen.
“No. My idea is simply to pay for the damn thing ourselves without this stupid claim that Mexico is going to pay for it. Any Mexican President who agreed to pay for this would be run out of office.”
Perhaps, but “getting them to pay for it” has many avenues! Any way you slice it, whether it be taxing remittances, tariffs of Mexican goods, cutting off our foreign aid; all of it amounts to “making them pay for it!” Mexico is not our friend, they are simply a “Hispanic Leech” that’s been attached to us for far too long. Thanks to the Catholic Church, and abject stupidity, the Mexicans procreate with abandon, and think that America must pay for their perfidy. So I don’t care what mechanism Trump uses, the wall will be built and it must not be built with money from the American taxpayers.
I read his full memo and you're right -- the tax idea is out, which is good because it was not defensible. As has been pointed out throughout this thread, the government has all kinds of tools to get at problemmatic transfers of funds. There’s nothing per se illegal about a terrorist sympathizer sending money to a terrorist in the Middle East either, but that’s obviously something we want to stop, and so there are tools to do so. If it’s possible to stop that, then why not this?
Because those are all based on individual findings against specific financial institutions, specific tranferors, or specific recipients, who are individually found to be committing some illegal act. That's not the case here.
And the problem with just focusing on "illegals" transferring funds which is what he seems to address in that memo) is what I said above. They'll just use the same bogus documents (that appear legitimate) that they use to get work, or they'll have someone who is here legally do it for them.
The legal solutions (focusing only on transfers by illegals) are not practical, and the practical solution (barring all transfers by anyone) are not legal.
And even to do that, you'd had to revise the CFR, which means the whole notice and comment period, etc., with the final rule expanding it to western union and monetary transfers being challenged in the court....
It's a huge freaking headache to fight a battle we'd almost certainly lose(and do we really want to lose to Mexico in the first year of a new Presidency?). I know it may sound empowering to some, but it's a dumb pledge. Just build the damn wall and pay for it ourselves. A lot faster, a lot less headache, and no giving the Mexicans their big chance to show they will stand up to the gringos.
“Mexico is a narco state. It won’t pay for the wall because it enables the flow of drugs into the US. If that is made more difficult the Mexican politicos that supported such a policy would be found dead.”
I’d say that a few dead Mexican politicos would be a small price to pay for curbing illegal immigration. I just hope Trumps actions have them $hitting themselves in fear of death!
“Do that, and you’ll see a cottage industry of intermediaries willing to route transfers through the Caymans, BVI, Panama, etc., for far less than 90% (I think there may be a Panamanian law firm or two willing to help set up the business).”
Sorry Jimmy, but most Mexican Illegals are not that sophisticated, and individually, the amounts of money they send are insignificant. And any new process to aggrigate their funds so as to make it a profitable market would be discovered more or less immediately.
While I am and will forever be a Bruce Campbell fan, it seems to me that some valid back-of-the-napkin ideas have been presented which, if tweaked here and there, could facilitate this idea of Mexico paying for the wall.
Keep in mind we are simply patriots on a message forum, tossing out ideas that aren’t rocket science. You do have valid points, but when I consider the gymnastics undertaken by congress to do all sorts of other things, targeting Mexican remits does not seem to be very difficult.
Trump brings a can-do attitude to the table, which is what we need.
“It’s a trick; get an axe.”
Regards
Trump can walk and chew gum at the same time. Keep in mind, all of these mechanics that you’re talking about are only relevant to the extent that Trump has to make good on a threat. He can immediately start building the wall with available funds (it was actually authorized via Congressional statute several years ago), and then really he’d have at a minimum nearly four years (Novemember 2020) to get Mexico to start contributing to it.
Upon entering office in January 2017, he’ll immediately have three million people reporting to him. Via his executive authority, he can divert a few hundred of those to each of two tasks: (1) building the wall; and (2) identifying mechanisms to stop illegal aliens from remitting funds to Mexico. He can also call on his allies in Congress led by Jeff Sessions to start drafting legislation to that effect as well. Then simply place a call down south specifying that they can either agree to pay for the wall or face hundreds of federal employees doing everything they can to stop a flow of billions of dollars in hard cash flowing into their country. I think their choice would be obvious at that point.
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.