Featured Donald Trump Releases Plan to Make Mexico Pay for Border Wall

Money that isn't being used to buy or trade anything.

 

So what you're telling me is that these guys really can't be upset about ObamaCare being a tax if they are okay with Trump making interdictions of money transfers a tax?Eek And that in itself speaks to their problems not really being with ObamaCare but their personal issues with Obama.Thumbsup

 

But...but...but...aren't you one of those politically conservative folks who want smaller government and government that doesn't interfere more in people's lives?

Sounds like you really like government. I see the government now just proclaiming

 

No, it's extremely relevant. The Constitution gives the government the power to lay and collect taxes, coin money and regulate the value of it, and to regulate commerce. No where is there the power granted to stop people from passing money amongst themselves or to people in other countries. (At least, I'm not aware of it, willing to learn.)

An argument can be made that the money of illegal immigrants is part of the commissioning of a crime (they are in the country illegally, after all) and therefore could be intercepted, but first the government must name the people whose money they intend to intercept. This sort of thing is done routinely with drug dealers and other criminals.

 

Well as admitted above, yes people can circumvent any law to some extant, especially if the government chooses to not enforce it.

But we see, as In the case of Iran for instance, "LONDON/ANKARA (Reuters) - Despite a diplomatic thaw, Western banks are steering clear of attempts by Iran to get them involved in financing humanitarian transactions, fearing they could be penalized under U.S. sanctions, bankers and government officials told Reuters...but measures by the European Union and the United States have made trade generally more difficult over the past two years by hindering payments and shipping." - And it hasn't been necessary to police the internet as China does.

Mexico is currently using the US as a giant tax-free cash cow. This is basically billions of dollars of free money entering their country. If Mexico wants to continue receiving it there is no reason we can't tax it.

 

OK, so how will this tax be implemented?

New law passed by Congress?

Executive order by the President?

 

And folk think that Mexico has no recourse to punish America? Dream on folk. I've seen it happen before with other countries. We try to punish them or cause a problem and they simply reply by causing us problems. Ain't no free lunch folk!

 

It's not exactly free money. The senders do pay a fee to send these funds usually based upon the amount being sent. Granted percentage wise, it's not very much in comparison to what's being received. But it's a business, and an industry that employs tens of thousands of people.

Those remittances also allow Mexican citizens to be able to afford exports from the US. Mexico is our second biggest trade partner after Canada.

So it shouldn't be viewed at all as free money because that money also causes an increase in demand for US exports in developing Mexico states.

Not to mention that if you cut off the remittances, you affect the exports from several states that depend on the funds gained by sending their exports to Mexico.

We export several hundred billions of goods to Mexico every year. And our unique trade agreement with them causes them to be one of the few countries with which we actually have a trade surplus. Last number I saw was over 130 billion dollars.

Why on earth would we mess that up over a wall?

 

Al

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, for example, provides federal consumer protections on remittance transactions. These are mostly for the protection of remittances senders, but could be amended. The act was signed into law by Congress and the president.

 

It would be an economic nightmare for us and them. There is over half a TRILLION dollars of back and forth trade between the United States and Mexico every year.

Thinking we're punishing Mexico would also punish us. The economies of Texas, California, New York, New Jersey,Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Washington, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, and North Carolina just to name a few would suffer greatly as a large chunk of their exports go to Mexico.

And this trade exists because remittances sent down to Mexico allows them to be able to afford US exports.

They are also the third largest provider of crude oil and petroleum to the US. So tax remittances and see what gets taxed in return.

Donald needs to go fly a kite with a very long string attached.

 

Mexico has some of the most restrictive immigration laws in the hemisphere. Yet their govt prints out and distributes handbooks showing their own poor how best to illegally enter our country. Have you ever worked in one of the construction trades? I did when I was young, but now those trades are taken over by illegal immigrants. And where have our manufacturing jobs gone? Mostly to Mexico.
If millions of Americans were entering their country illegally, taking millions of jobs away from their own native born workers, you can safely assume they would act. Even if it meant straining relations with the US. Taxing remittances seems a small and fair means of evening the balances.

 

I understand what you're saying. But for so long, this has been a mutually beneficial happening for both countries. I think it hasn't been until recently that the overall demographics of the country started to shift that folks who are in the majority started really complaining about it. And they wouldn't have said anything if it had not been on Fox News or conservative talk radio.

How'd they take over those jobs? They aren't hiring anyone.

Illegal immigrants didn't cause this.

Now you're starting to sound like Fox News. They aren't "taking" jobs from anyone. They are being hired by the folks who want to give them jobs.

Again, unlike China and a lot of our other trading partners, we have a trade surplus with Mexico in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Taxing remittances wouldn't push us towards evening the balances, but would rather cause considerable harm to our surplus trade balance with Mexico.

 

Best of all, they vote just like you do, right?

Well, this year, it's a tax for me, but yes and no. More no - while this pie-in-the-sky wall and Obamacare are federal issues, the wall sounds more like a works project, kind of like the Hoover Dam in a way. I think it couldn't be mandated by an EO but then Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase that way, and it would need to be funded.

Trump would have to eminent domain on every border state and do the opposite of this:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2...ogram-facilitates-most-remittances-to-mexico/

IOW, now the US taxpayers are paying for these illegals to send money out of the country. And it was all GWB's brilliant idea.

 

As for illegals taking jobs in the construction industry, it has been a fact of life for many years. Sure, the contractors hire them cause they can get them so cheap, so technically they are not "taking" jobs. In today's weak economy not many construction jobs are available, but the ones that are, are mostly held by illegals, at least in my area of the country. Painting, drywall, roofing, asphalt, landscaping, all Mexican workers. This wasn't the case 30 years ago. E-verify should be used in all states IMO.

I do not have cable TV and do not watch Fox News. It would have been a nifty little jab though.

We have been running a trade deficit for many years with Mexico. LINK. It has only turned around in the last few months because we have not needed to import so much oil from them. Think fracking and the oil glut. Up until this year we have had trade deficits with Mexico in the neighborhood of $50 billion annual. Anyway, this wasn't even mentioned above. We were discussing taxing remittances.

 

How is it a fact if you turn around and say the contractors are hiring them? They are being given jobs. They aren't taking them from anyone.

Then report the folks who are hiring them.

Again, if you know this, report them.

It was not intended as a jab. I listen to conservative talk and I watch Fox News, and CNN, and MSNBC. You're repeating the conservative talking points. You may not have watched it on Fox, but the information made it to you because somebody repeated what they heard on Fox and one of the conservative talk programs.

If you just look at imports vs exports, yes. But I mentioned earlier that we have a unique trade agreement with Mexico that because of production sharing, gives a trade surplus in the billions of dollars.

 

If they have come here illegally, and are employed illegally, they are taking jobs that otherwise would be worked by US citizens, that is taking jobs.

Good idea. Of course police are not able to act on such tips. States are not able to act on such tips, and the ones that tried to were sued by the current administration. And then there is the matter of sanctuary cites who absolutely refuse to cooperate with ICE. And the fact that ICE cannot possibly respond to millions of tips nationwide and if they do they have been instructed to use prosecutorial discretion. But other that that it's a great idea.

Again, this is why programs such as E-verify would be enforcement tools that actually work.

But in this case I am speaking of things that I have observed as an individual.

Well that is what Trade Deficits are. By that metric the US has had years of trade deficits with Mexico.

The focus here is that taxing the $25 billion in remittances to Mexico, originating from people who are largely here illegally to begin with, could be a good move for the US. Seems fair to me.

 

Sounds like a plan with a lot of good intention. How would it be implemented? How would it work?

List the necessary steps the government would take to intercept a money transfer to Mexico.

 

Hey Aaron, thanks for the "Dumb" rating. I'll throw it on the pile.

I think Donald Trump's plan to intercept wire transfers is "Dumb". Why don't you give us a scenario for how this would work in the real world.

 

Hi ITL,

It would be expensive but possible and the fee even passed on to the customer.

An "international funds transfer" document with the amount, the sender and the receiver's name would have to be implemented and entered into a computer system data base. Only those financial institutions who are able to data entry the funds would be allowed to do so.

It would have to be all inclusive, not just Jose but you and I as well crimping even more of our freedoms.

Would their be cheating - of course. Even "legal" cheating, like sending it by snail mail.

But why should we do this and add more regulations, more paper work and bureaucracy to our already over burdened systems?

And what would be gained by knowing that Jose sent $25.00 to his madre in Mejico?

HankD