4 ms·
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 circ
by 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 agoFrom 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.