8 ms·

You realize this same logic could seemingly dismiss any regulation (assault weapons, child labor, tax evasion), right? "People will smuggle illegal guns from a

You realize this same logic could seemingly dismiss any regulation (assault weapons, child labor, tax evasion), right? "People will smuggle illegal guns from abroad. Or buy the parts and assemble them. Or get a machine shop and make them." A regulation, no matter its aim, does not require 100% compliance to be an effective deterrent. I'm not saying this plan will work, but a generic "people will get around it" argument is not illuminating.

superbatfish 10y ago
>You realize this same logic could seemingly dismiss any regulation Well, kinda, but not to same degree. Wired money is obviously way easier to smuggle than physical goods...
- throwawaymsft 10y ago
  Sure; some rules are easier to circumvent than others. The real question is whether it's onerous enough to act as a deterrent, not whether some people will circumvent it. In this thread someone said it's like trying to stop the import of illegal drugs. Regulations seem to work for Singapore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalence_of_opiates_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalenc...
  - critiqjo 10y ago
    > The real question is whether it's onerous enough to act as a deterrent, not whether some people will circumvent it. Deterring what? "Illegal immigration" or "people walking across the border"? If it is the former, then that plan is just so stupid to be of any value. Banning transfer of money from US to Mexico to make Mexico pay for "building a 10 ft high border-wall" is ... wow, just saying that out loud feels weird. (PS: I'm neither an American nor a Mexican!)
    - throwawaymsft 10y ago
      From Trump's perspective, Mexico benefits by having illegal immigrants in the US send money back to Mexico. There is no real reason for Mexico to enforce the border. Trump wants to deter this behavior (not enforcing the border) by assigning a cost (no more wire transfers back). I'm not making a judgment here, just trying to clarify the worldview.

superbatfish 10y ago

>You realize this same logic could seemingly dismiss any regulation Well, kinda, but not to same degree. Wired money is obviously way easier to smuggle than physical goods...

throwawaymsft 10y ago
Sure; some rules are easier to circumvent than others. The real question is whether it's onerous enough to act as a deterrent, not whether some people will circumvent it. In this thread someone said it's like trying to stop the import of illegal drugs. Regulations seem to work for Singapore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalence_of_opiates_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalenc...
- critiqjo 10y ago
  > The real question is whether it's onerous enough to act as a deterrent, not whether some people will circumvent it. Deterring what? "Illegal immigration" or "people walking across the border"? If it is the former, then that plan is just so stupid to be of any value. Banning transfer of money from US to Mexico to make Mexico pay for "building a 10 ft high border-wall" is ... wow, just saying that out loud feels weird. (PS: I'm neither an American nor a Mexican!)
  - throwawaymsft 10y ago
    From Trump's perspective, Mexico benefits by having illegal immigrants in the US send money back to Mexico. There is no real reason for Mexico to enforce the border. Trump wants to deter this behavior (not enforcing the border) by assigning a cost (no more wire transfers back). I'm not making a judgment here, just trying to clarify the worldview.