7 ms·

You can find more detail on how he plans to make Mexico pay for the wall here: https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf https://assets.donaldjtrump

by ben174 10y ago

You can find more detail on how he plans to make Mexico pay for the wall here: https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf Specifically, he will threaten to disallow wire transfer of money from US to Mexico by non-citizens. Since that is a revenue source they greatly depend on, he suggests they'd rather fund the building of the wall. If they agree to fund the wall, then the ban on transfers will go away.

soundwave106 10y ago
The wall is ridiculous in itself though. I'm looking forward to see what Donald Trump's wall does when they encounter Santa Elena Canyon. (https://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/secyn.htm https://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/secyn.htm)
- cglace 10y ago
  Looks like the canyon would be a natural barrier. But if you have a small gap it seems like you could just build some guard posts at that gap.
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    The Big Bend area is just one natural area like that. Consider the Amistad Reservoir (http://cdn.onlyinyourstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/3311117978_cfcabc7137_z.jpg http://cdn.onlyinyourstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/33...) for instance. Water levels there are about 1100 feet. Kind of hard to put a fence in the middle there. :) Obviously I'm "sticking to the metaphor", but legitimately that Big Bend area is one of those reminders that this "wall" concept is ridiculous for other reasons. That area and others along the border awfully remote, which will make managing the infrastructure and obtaining people to work there a headache. It will also make building the actual infrastructure extremely challenging and probably quite expensive. Not that Trump would care, but it's certainly not an environmentally friendly proposal either. If the economy is such where Mexicans still want to migrate, there's other possibilities. No wall will secure the sea for instance, unless you build that "wall" around the entire Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean. (Beachgoers won't be happy about that.) The wall does not stop exploitation methods such as visa overstays or smuggling in the heavier trafficked borders. Even the Berlin Wall -- well more fortified than any 2,000 mile could ever be -- was breached 5,000 times in its history, so there's a good chance that even these remote areas might get some activity. How much is America willing to pay for "a wall" to stop the immigrants? Enough to wreck the economy? Well, that's one sure way to prevent Mexicans from crossing over. :)
    - jjawssd 10y ago
      America isn't paying for the wall
waterphone 10y ago
Then they'll send money with Bitcoin.
- laichzeit0 10y ago
  How would they convert USD to Bitcoin? And before that, and before that, etc. at some point someone who's paying taxes is gonna have to engage in something that the IRS is gonna ask questions about.
mywittyname 10y ago
So Mexicans start using bitcoin, amazon gift cards, or something like that. Or we end up with "underground banks" that can effectively transfer money across the border without actually doing so, i.e., you buy a digital good at a physical location in the US, transfer it to a relative in Mexico, who then sells it back to the company at a slight discount for cash (which, as a side-effect, would be a great way to launder drug money). Or I guess, you bounce money through Belize or something. Either way, it doesn't sound very effective.
- mabbo 10y ago
  My thoughts exactly. I'm going to go launch a Spanish bitcoin buy/sell website.
  - smm2000 10y ago
    And you will go to jail really fast for operating unlicensed money transfer service. They will also add something about facilitating terrorism to add a few more years to your sentence.
    - critiqjo 10y ago
      Only if mabbo is in the US, right?
    - mabbo 10y ago
      American law applies to Americans. I'll operate my Bitcoin website from Mexico, who would have every reason to protect me.
- dsl 10y ago
  Operating a monetary transmittal service in the United States without implementing KYC-AML (which is what he is basing this on) is practically suicide. Even retailers will send you to customer service to complete a form for buying too many gift cards.
- awesomerobot 10y ago
  Basically it's like saying you want to ban illegal drugs from entering the country.
finid 10y ago
Banks that make money (fees) from such international money transfers are not gonna be very happy with Trump.
ocschwar 10y ago
Well, that's one way to get all of Mexico hooked on Bitcoin.
- pen2l 10y ago
  Hah! Great point! Now is the time for a startup to emerge that makes Bitcoin _EASY_! Easy like my-grandma-can-do-it easy. This actually finally might be the thing that makes BTC!
  - jjawssd 10y ago
    ... that makes BTC get shut down in the clear
bjacokes 10y ago
This falls prey to the same fallacious thinking as gambling with the house's money. Assuming we can extort billions of dollars from Mexico, that's money we could be spending on anything – why is a wall the best use for it? And if a wall is the best use for it, the government should be prepared to build it with our own tax dollars, regardless of whether we extort money from Mexico.
- jjawssd 10y ago
  I believe the idea is that illegal immigrants are causing more than that amount in harm to our society, i.e. through free healthcare
  - bjacokes 10y ago
    Maybe this is a better way to look at it. Candidate: "We're going to build a wall between us and Mexico. It'll cost us $7 billion." Electorate: "Umm. That's a lot of money. Let's do something else with it." If that's how people would react, they should react the same way even if we're getting the money from Mexico. Money is fungible, and as much as our hearts enjoy poetic justice, it shouldn't matter where it's coming from. There are a couple of situations where we would still want it built, even if its cost exceeded what we were willing to pay ourselves. One is if this is a cooperative, non-zero-sum situation: if Mexico were getting some value from the wall, they might be willing to pay some of the cost, beyond what we can extract via tariffs and seized remittances. The other is if Mexico is terrible at negotiations, which is likely what Trump is assuming.
  - stouset 10y ago
    And this idea is painfully ignorant of the simple fact that illegal immigrants pay taxes just like everyone else.
    - theparanoid 10y ago
      Lower income people's taxes don't offset their use of government services. The break even point is around 60k.
seibelj 10y ago
I do not support building a wall, nor building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it. However, if I was trying to get Mexico to pay for the wall, gosh darn it this document explains coherently how to do it! You can't deny that the administration is goal-oriented.
- heartbreak 10y ago
  Not to sound like a "bleeding heart" liberal, but understand that the $24b per year in money that flows into Mexico from individuals living in the U.S. is money that goes to their families. The document even goes so far as to remind the reader that there is no social safety net in Mexico, which will compound the effect of cutting off income from family members living in the U.S. Is that who we are?
  - Sacho 10y ago
    Yes? It's weird that you prefer the people who have broken your own laws to enter your country, to the ones who have tried to go through your lawful process and failed. Where is your bleeding heart for all the would-be immigrants who tried to go were rejected by your legal immigration officers, who similarly might have no social safety net? You cannot treat all of the world's ills as your own. You may have decided that illegal immigrants are part of the American identity, but a lot of the voters for Trump have not, and are rallying against that. Unless you convince them to treat illegal immigrants as part of their own, it's unlikely you'll find a "bleeding heart" argument to persuade them.
    - heartbreak 10y ago
      My heart bleeds for the women and children living off wired money in Mexico, not for the men working illegally in the U.S sending them money. The families back in Mexico with no safety net are the ones who will suffer if we cut off Western Union as a bargaining chip. That is an argument made in that document in favor of the plan. People will suffer in Mexico, so Mexico will be more inclined to make a payment for the wall. The people suffering in Mexico - what law have they broken? I haven't decided that illegal immigrants are part of the American identity, but I do consider the people not in America who are receiving money to be innocent bystanders (with the exception of drug money, but the cartels wouldn't be stopped by these sanctions anyway).
inostia 10y ago
This actually makes sense as a policy. Though I don't understand why he still thinks Mexico should pay for it. It just seems a bit dickish. Simply increasing the federal prison time for illegal immigrants (as suggested) would probably eliminate a lot of the traffic.
- chillacy 10y ago
  Why would you pay to imprison illegal immigrants? Also there's some amount of evidence that says increasing punishment doesn't necessarily act as increased deterrent to some crimes past a certain point.
  - totalZero 10y ago
    A tall order, sir. Let's see the evidence!
    - chillacy 10y ago
      Plenty of it sir: http://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx http://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx > The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment. > Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished > Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=does+increasing+punishment+reduce+crime&oq=increasing+punishment&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0.2985j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=does+increasing+punishment+r...
SubiculumCode 10y ago
Would the president have that authority?
jaza 10y ago
They'll just run their cash over the border to Mexico, instead of sending it via electronic means. This has already been happening for years, although the vast majority of such cash running has consisted of illicit drug money. No reason why it couldn't expand to become the main way for illegal workers to get their cash heading south to their families, if there really were no other option.
bduerst 10y ago
How do you know if a wire transfer is from a U.S. Citizen?
- inostia 10y ago
  Because it would enact legislation that would require ID before wire transfer? I'm not sure if this is currently done, but it may upend laws (in CA) re: getting a driver's license if you are an illegal citizen. I can't imagine that it would be required to submit a birth certificate or social security card for wire transfer.
downandout 10y ago
Sounds like we should all be shorting Western Union stock. If he actually implements these controls, they will be the hardest hit.
ojbyrne 10y ago
In retaliation, Mexico files a complaint through NAFTA and the WTO, and starts taking retaliatory action. A 10% immediate surtax on the value of US owned property would be a good start. And eventually the trade war turns into a shooting war. We've seen the script before.
anonbanker 10y ago
When exchanging pesos is outlawed, only outlaws will exchange pesos.

by ben174 10y ago

soundwave106 10y ago

The wall is ridiculous in itself though. I'm looking forward to see what Donald Trump's wall does when they encounter Santa Elena Canyon. (https://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/secyn.htm https://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/secyn.htm)

cglace 10y ago
Looks like the canyon would be a natural barrier. But if you have a small gap it seems like you could just build some guard posts at that gap.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  The Big Bend area is just one natural area like that. Consider the Amistad Reservoir (http://cdn.onlyinyourstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/3311117978_cfcabc7137_z.jpg http://cdn.onlyinyourstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/33...) for instance. Water levels there are about 1100 feet. Kind of hard to put a fence in the middle there. :) Obviously I'm "sticking to the metaphor", but legitimately that Big Bend area is one of those reminders that this "wall" concept is ridiculous for other reasons. That area and others along the border awfully remote, which will make managing the infrastructure and obtaining people to work there a headache. It will also make building the actual infrastructure extremely challenging and probably quite expensive. Not that Trump would care, but it's certainly not an environmentally friendly proposal either. If the economy is such where Mexicans still want to migrate, there's other possibilities. No wall will secure the sea for instance, unless you build that "wall" around the entire Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean. (Beachgoers won't be happy about that.) The wall does not stop exploitation methods such as visa overstays or smuggling in the heavier trafficked borders. Even the Berlin Wall -- well more fortified than any 2,000 mile could ever be -- was breached 5,000 times in its history, so there's a good chance that even these remote areas might get some activity. How much is America willing to pay for "a wall" to stop the immigrants? Enough to wreck the economy? Well, that's one sure way to prevent Mexicans from crossing over. :)
  - jjawssd 10y ago
    America isn't paying for the wall

waterphone 10y ago

Then they'll send money with Bitcoin.

laichzeit0 10y ago
How would they convert USD to Bitcoin? And before that, and before that, etc. at some point someone who's paying taxes is gonna have to engage in something that the IRS is gonna ask questions about.

mywittyname 10y ago

So Mexicans start using bitcoin, amazon gift cards, or something like that. Or we end up with "underground banks" that can effectively transfer money across the border without actually doing so, i.e., you buy a digital good at a physical location in the US, transfer it to a relative in Mexico, who then sells it back to the company at a slight discount for cash (which, as a side-effect, would be a great way to launder drug money). Or I guess, you bounce money through Belize or something. Either way, it doesn't sound very effective.

mabbo 10y ago
My thoughts exactly. I'm going to go launch a Spanish bitcoin buy/sell website.
- smm2000 10y ago
  And you will go to jail really fast for operating unlicensed money transfer service. They will also add something about facilitating terrorism to add a few more years to your sentence.
  - critiqjo 10y ago
    Only if mabbo is in the US, right?
  - mabbo 10y ago
    American law applies to Americans. I'll operate my Bitcoin website from Mexico, who would have every reason to protect me.
dsl 10y ago
Operating a monetary transmittal service in the United States without implementing KYC-AML (which is what he is basing this on) is practically suicide. Even retailers will send you to customer service to complete a form for buying too many gift cards.
awesomerobot 10y ago
Basically it's like saying you want to ban illegal drugs from entering the country.

finid 10y ago

Banks that make money (fees) from such international money transfers are not gonna be very happy with Trump.

ocschwar 10y ago

Well, that's one way to get all of Mexico hooked on Bitcoin.

pen2l 10y ago
Hah! Great point! Now is the time for a startup to emerge that makes Bitcoin _EASY_! Easy like my-grandma-can-do-it easy. This actually finally might be the thing that makes BTC!
- jjawssd 10y ago
  ... that makes BTC get shut down in the clear

bjacokes 10y ago

This falls prey to the same fallacious thinking as gambling with the house's money. Assuming we can extort billions of dollars from Mexico, that's money we could be spending on anything – why is a wall the best use for it? And if a wall is the best use for it, the government should be prepared to build it with our own tax dollars, regardless of whether we extort money from Mexico.

jjawssd 10y ago
I believe the idea is that illegal immigrants are causing more than that amount in harm to our society, i.e. through free healthcare
- bjacokes 10y ago
  Maybe this is a better way to look at it. Candidate: "We're going to build a wall between us and Mexico. It'll cost us $7 billion." Electorate: "Umm. That's a lot of money. Let's do something else with it." If that's how people would react, they should react the same way even if we're getting the money from Mexico. Money is fungible, and as much as our hearts enjoy poetic justice, it shouldn't matter where it's coming from. There are a couple of situations where we would still want it built, even if its cost exceeded what we were willing to pay ourselves. One is if this is a cooperative, non-zero-sum situation: if Mexico were getting some value from the wall, they might be willing to pay some of the cost, beyond what we can extract via tariffs and seized remittances. The other is if Mexico is terrible at negotiations, which is likely what Trump is assuming.
- stouset 10y ago
  And this idea is painfully ignorant of the simple fact that illegal immigrants pay taxes just like everyone else.
  - theparanoid 10y ago
    Lower income people's taxes don't offset their use of government services. The break even point is around 60k.

seibelj 10y ago

I do not support building a wall, nor building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it. However, if I was trying to get Mexico to pay for the wall, gosh darn it this document explains coherently how to do it! You can't deny that the administration is goal-oriented.

heartbreak 10y ago
Not to sound like a "bleeding heart" liberal, but understand that the $24b per year in money that flows into Mexico from individuals living in the U.S. is money that goes to their families. The document even goes so far as to remind the reader that there is no social safety net in Mexico, which will compound the effect of cutting off income from family members living in the U.S. Is that who we are?
- Sacho 10y ago
  Yes? It's weird that you prefer the people who have broken your own laws to enter your country, to the ones who have tried to go through your lawful process and failed. Where is your bleeding heart for all the would-be immigrants who tried to go were rejected by your legal immigration officers, who similarly might have no social safety net? You cannot treat all of the world's ills as your own. You may have decided that illegal immigrants are part of the American identity, but a lot of the voters for Trump have not, and are rallying against that. Unless you convince them to treat illegal immigrants as part of their own, it's unlikely you'll find a "bleeding heart" argument to persuade them.
  - heartbreak 10y ago
    My heart bleeds for the women and children living off wired money in Mexico, not for the men working illegally in the U.S sending them money. The families back in Mexico with no safety net are the ones who will suffer if we cut off Western Union as a bargaining chip. That is an argument made in that document in favor of the plan. People will suffer in Mexico, so Mexico will be more inclined to make a payment for the wall. The people suffering in Mexico - what law have they broken? I haven't decided that illegal immigrants are part of the American identity, but I do consider the people not in America who are receiving money to be innocent bystanders (with the exception of drug money, but the cartels wouldn't be stopped by these sanctions anyway).

inostia 10y ago

This actually makes sense as a policy. Though I don't understand why he still thinks Mexico should pay for it. It just seems a bit dickish. Simply increasing the federal prison time for illegal immigrants (as suggested) would probably eliminate a lot of the traffic.

chillacy 10y ago
Why would you pay to imprison illegal immigrants? Also there's some amount of evidence that says increasing punishment doesn't necessarily act as increased deterrent to some crimes past a certain point.
- totalZero 10y ago
  A tall order, sir. Let's see the evidence!
  - chillacy 10y ago
    Plenty of it sir: http://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx http://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx > The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment. > Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished > Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=does+increasing+punishment+reduce+crime&oq=increasing+punishment&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0.2985j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=does+increasing+punishment+r...

SubiculumCode 10y ago

Would the president have that authority?

jaza 10y ago

They'll just run their cash over the border to Mexico, instead of sending it via electronic means. This has already been happening for years, although the vast majority of such cash running has consisted of illicit drug money. No reason why it couldn't expand to become the main way for illegal workers to get their cash heading south to their families, if there really were no other option.

bduerst 10y ago

How do you know if a wire transfer is from a U.S. Citizen?

inostia 10y ago
Because it would enact legislation that would require ID before wire transfer? I'm not sure if this is currently done, but it may upend laws (in CA) re: getting a driver's license if you are an illegal citizen. I can't imagine that it would be required to submit a birth certificate or social security card for wire transfer.

downandout 10y ago

Sounds like we should all be shorting Western Union stock. If he actually implements these controls, they will be the hardest hit.

ojbyrne 10y ago

In retaliation, Mexico files a complaint through NAFTA and the WTO, and starts taking retaliatory action. A 10% immediate surtax on the value of US owned property would be a good start. And eventually the trade war turns into a shooting war. We've seen the script before.

anonbanker 10y ago

When exchanging pesos is outlawed, only outlaws will exchange pesos.