A lot of what's in there seems pretty reasonable, but:
1) The whole border wall thing is just ridiculous. I thought he had given up on that. Why would Mexico have to pay for that? If the US wants to build a wall, fine, build it and pay for it. It doesn't make sense to demand that Mexico pay for it. It's like building a wall on your property and demanding your neighbors pay for it.
2) The FDA thing is scary. Regulations and processes are there for a reason. I'll be very wary if this goes through and I ever have to take any medication that's not established in the market.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Big Bend area is just one natural area like that. Consider the Amistad Reservoir (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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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).
I see your point, and I see your concern. However, I don't think that concern alone is a stopping factor for implementing such a decision. That would mean that you cannot make progress in many bad situations, when people have begun to rely on them. As an example, I think Obama was right to pull out of Iraq, but he was criticized for increasing the instability there and the return of terrorist groups to it. The Republican support from the Rust belt is a similar example(moving from cheap to intellectual labor has been great for the USA's overall GDP, but has destroyed the livelihood of blue-collar workers).
That was the heart of my point - with a limited budget of resources, you simply cannot help anyone. At that point, you are faced with some philosophical questions - should I be maximizing some global 'goodness' factor, or should I be working for the local group that I am supposed to represent? In the end, the leaders of democratic countries are elected to represent the will of their voters, not to better mankind(unless that is what the voters want!).
If Trump and his supporters believe that a wall will improve the situation for the US and American citizens, then I don't think arguments about the welfare of others(whom they might even view antagonistically) will sway them.
I found different arguments much more persuasive - arguments that removing illegal immigrants would not bring jobs back to American citizens, because they were a net economic positive and creating demand as well as supply.
However, these arguments seemed to be drowned out by the loud, resonating narrative on how evil and racist the supporters of Trump's policy were, which I can only imagine hardened their resolve to get it through. An especially easy angle that Trump could pursue was the disregard of rule of law by illegal immigrant supporters, which I feel could have received a lot more attention and understanding from Trump's opposition.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FWIW this document isn't dated that I can see but it does refer to election day like so:
"On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities and honesty to our government"
Meantime significantly more potent (and possibly effective) drugs are in clinical trials, eg: Hu-3F8 at MSKCC. But... given the cost and enormous amount of red tape needed to get the drug approved (combined with very small market) odds of them getting approved in the next 10 years are not that high.
Something needs to change, but I am not sure exactly what.
You did?? He's been personally promising to build it 3-5 times a day to tens of thousands of people in every competitive state in the US. It's kind of hard to miss...
>> Why would Mexico have to pay for that? ... It's like building a wall on your property and demanding your neighbors pay for it.
Except the neighbors -- to stretch the analogy a bit more -- have their children, pets and a few spare vehicles in your yard and have become accustomed to browbeating you into not complaining about it. Trump et al. plan on altering this dynamic.
To stretch the analogy even further: your family has become accustomed to having the neighbors' children cook your food and borrowing those spare vehicles whenever you feel like it.
They're not just hanging out in your yard, they're contributing to your household's economy and are friends with your own kids. In fact, your daughter told them to keep the pets in the yard because she loves them so much.
Suddenly asking the neighbors to build a thick fence and stay the hell out will get your other family members very upset, and also means that you'll have to do more cooking from now on. Tough choices for the family dad...
> It doesn't make sense to demand that Mexico pay for it. It's like building a wall on your property and demanding your neighbors pay for it.
When buying a house, wouldnt you try to negotiate for seller concessions like paying for repairs?
Trumps wall comments were always in conjunction with discussing the massive trade deficit with Mexico. If we are in a stronger position to negotiate with Mexico, why wouldnt we negotiate the best deal we can get?
If you really think about it. We only need this wall because of Mexico, so why should we pay if we dont have to?
> If you really think about it. We only need this wall because of Mexico, so why should we pay if we dont have to?
People flee Mexico because it's an extremely poor country with a horrible government and is controlled by drug cartels. Screwing the country over further economically sounds like the worst way to solve this problem. In fact, it seems like a very good way to exacerbate the problem.
Perhaps that's why private prison stocks are up so much on Trump's election. His actions are clearly going to increase the flow of illegal immigrants into the US, and now that these people can be tossed into federal prison for mandatory minimum sentences. So the end result is, the federal government will be on the hook for something like a quarter million dollars for each one of the people caught crossing the border.
Trump just created a (12 million illegal immigrants * $250k/yr each * 5yr minimum sentences = $15 trillion) market.
> Screwing the country over further economically sounds like the worst way to solve this problem.
First, I am just a random uneducated and ignorant American, so take my two cents for what it is...only two cents.
From my vantage point, cutting off the drug cartels access to the US market could potentially do wonders to shifting the balance of power and helping Mexico in the long run.
Also, as unpopular as it is, the US governments first mandate is to protect it's citizens. Sometimes that means making tough choices that doesn't help everybody, but responsibility takes maturity and a willingness to consider unpopular options.
>His actions are clearly going to increase the flow of illegal immigrants into the US, and now that these people can be tossed into federal prison...
I think missed the key word in his contract "CRIMINAL". He is not talking about people who broke the law by illegally imigrating. He is talking about FELONS who ALSO came here illegally. They certainly don't belong roaming our streets unchecked.
Contributing illegal immigrants is a different discussion, but convicted felons, rapists, murderers, etc... who come here illegally belong in Mexican prisons and should be mexico's problem...if they can't do it, than yes, well put them in prison...to KEEP YOUR AND YOUR FAMILY SAFE.
You're not going to cut off the drug cartels. Sorry, it just isn't going to happen, and I say that as someone who lives in an area they use as a common smuggling route and have encountered groups of smugglers multiple times in the past few years. They walk through the desert and climb mountains with 60+ lb bales of marijuana on their back for days to a week at a time, going into terrain Border Patrol agents won't even try following them through most of the time. Even if a wall somehow gets built across the mountains and canyons all along the border, which it won't, they'll tunnel under, fire bales over, etc. They are very incentivized to get through, and they are very skilled at doing so and will find a way.
As for the use of the word "criminal", I think you may be the one misunderstanding in this instance. That word is used to refer to those Trump plans to deport, but on the second page you'll note:
> establishes a two-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation
No mention of criminal there—if you get caught more than once you would go to federal prison in the U.S. for a mandatory minimum of 2 years.
> I think you may be the one misunderstanding in this instance.
He states very clearly he is only deporting the 2 million Criminals...not the 11 million Illegals.
I really think you are the one who misunderstood his intent.
Edit: I relooked at the contract and I see where we are both coming from. There are two sections that address illegal immigration.
The first, which I was focusing on addresses WHO WE WILL DEPORT. The second section, discussing the wall, mentions jail penalties for people who are deported and re-enter.
In short, if we only deport the people trump says hell deport in this agreement, than I am right. If he deports all illegal immigrants, than you are right. Personally, I think the belief he will deport more than the dangerous criminals is not really reality based, despite his campaign rhetoric...(but, I've been wrong before.)
Here is the quote:
" FOURTH, begin removing the more than two million
criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel
visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back."
You're still misunderstanding. All illegal immigrants who cross the border and get caught in the process get deported. That's how it is now. Trump's jail time proposal isn't specifically for those with criminal records who he wants to deport, though they would be included as well, it would also apply to anyone who enters, gets caught, gets sent back, reenters a second time, and gets caught again.
I didn't consider that scenario, but I still feel it's a totally reasonable proposal.
It's one thing if you are already here, a functioning and contributing member of society where relatives are citizens, etc... IN that case, I can appreciate policies that give a path to citizenship...
But, at some point we need to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Not just to keep out the bad actors, but also to protect the integrity of our legal immigration process. Someone, somewhere has to be too late...
So, if you come across the border and we catch you and deport you, and you try to come across again, Jail sounds like a reasonable deterrent to encourage you to try the legal routes.
One thing that people don't seem to get is that some things are zero sum, and empathy with the little guy isn't always the right side. As individuals, we have the freedom to decide who we want to be, and how we feel about these sad stories...but as the American Government, they have a different value system and priorities that they need to filter these policies through.
Immigration is a tough issue. There is a sincerely held and reasonable position on both sides.
Do I think we should throw people whose only crime is illegal immigration into Jail? No. I am not even sure that Jail works and shouldn't just be completely abolished...But, we have to draw the line somewhere...
Trump is drawing that line at convicted criminals and people who aren't yet across the border. I think thats a fair stance that isn't unreasonable.
> From my vantage point, cutting off the drug cartels access to the US market could potentially do wonders to shifting the balance of power and helping Mexico in the long run.
If you think a wall is going to do this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. A physical wall is going to slow the cartels down for a week while they round up a bunch of Mexican citizens at gunpoint and force them to dig tunnels into the US, build submersibles to get here via waterways, and just go buy a dozen ladders. There are literally people that can climb a 10 foot wall without a ladder.
> If you think a wall is going to do this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.
Maybe you are right, but whats the alternative. The status quo of doing nothing?
I will almost always side with action vs. inaction. (not to say I'm right, just to say I would rather try and fail than not try because some random naysayers have more faith in the cartels than our ability to secure a border.)
Edit: I copied and pasted the wrong quote, so I fixed it.
>> People flee Mexico because it's an extremely poor country with a horrible government and is controlled by drug cartels. Screwing the country over further economically sounds like the worst way to solve this problem. In fact, it seems like a very good way to exacerbate the problem.
Mexico can't ever improve while the US continues to steal their despondent youth for low cost landscaping, house painting and wait staff. The very people with the courage and energy to leave their home countries to improve their lot are precisely the people needed to effect change against a corrupt regime. Our tolerance of mass illegal immigration is actually immoral; their are tens of millions of victims left to suffer bandit republics and kleptocracies because that small fraction of their populations that would otherwise have had the motivation to pick up a weapon and do something about it are instead occupied hanging drywall somewhere in the US.
>Mexico can't ever improve while the US continues to steal their despondent youth for low cost landscaping, house painting and wait staff.
Their options are working with the cartels or terrible local economy in Mexico, or going to the US to earn drastically more valuable dollars to send home to their families. I mean, we are being immoral by letting them stay here, but they are only so desperate because of how unimaginably damaging the US has been to Mexico. We mess with their government, incentivize them to sell us drugs by having so much demand for them, and exploit their natural resources. If anything, this is why I don't get anyone who thinks its JUST the immigrants fault - why do you think people commit suicide, or would think it's worth it to cross a border where they could be jailed or shot? Hint, it's because the alternative is so much worse. And anyone who is aware of even the tiniest bit of history knows exactly why the alternative is bad.
> earn drastically more valuable dollars to send home to their families.
I've had that remittances argument thrown at me so many times; do you honestly believe ---- I mean actually and genuinely believe ---- that transferring money back home is somehow equivalent to participating in the fate of your nation personally as a worker, parent, voter, dissident, etc.? Citing remittances is just another lame attempt to rationalize tolerating illegal immigration because admitting that there might actually be a great benefit to these countries if the US stopped stealing their youth is abhorrent to the leftist mind. You're so wrapped up in your SJW views you won't allow yourself to see the real damage.
Remittances don't fix anything. None of these nations that export their youth and collect remittances ever get better; Mexico, Haiti, so many Middle Eastern and North African nations, former Soviet republics exporting their youth to the EU... they fester on as failed states forever because the people they need to deal with the fail just leave for greener pastures. Individually you can't blame them, but the collective outcome is tragic. All remittances do is allow origin nations to subsist on a trickle of hard currency and continue feeding wealthy nations with more young.
> We mess with their government, incentivize [sic] them to sell us drugs by having so much demand for them, and exploit their natural resources.
All of these same conditions apply to Canada yet, somehow, Canada isn't a third world kleptocracy.
> If anything, this is why I don't get anyone who thinks its JUST the immigrants fault
Your 'anyone' that blames only immigrants is a mostly a strawman; there are despicable people in the world but that's not who elected Trump, despite what you think. We know employers create demand by employing illegals, and we know those employers buy politicians to oppose securing the border. We know drug abusers in the US create demand for narcotics, and we know securing the border will hinder their supply from Mexico, dealing a great blow to Mexican drug cartels; yet another important benefit of securing the border.
Is the fact that Mexican women can cross the border, pop out babies, and have them be FULL FUCKING CITIZENS so "DAMAGING" to you? Poor fucking Mexicans, give me a break. Charity starts at home.
What about the natives (Mexican or US)? They're gone and people don't care. Why should ALIVE US citizens support something leading to THEIR poverty and death?
Before the US was a country, Mexico was poor. It's still poor now. It'll still be poor 3000 years from now. It's not the US's job to help them.
> When buying a house, wouldnt you try to negotiate for seller concessions like paying for repairs?
Yes; but you typically do that before you buy the property, we've had texas for a while now.
All the talk about trade deficit with Mexico makes it sound like people think we just cut Mexico a check every year. As a nation, we receive goods and services for that deficit. It isn't money on the table.
I'm not going to pretend to understand the nuances of these issues, but it seems to me that governments are artificially creating these trade deficits with tax and import/export tariff schemes. I don't understand them, but I don't see how it's a bad idea to at least explore how Chinas currency manipulation and various trade deficits/ tariffs can better reflect the true market and not be artificially manipulated by various governments.
If the trade deficit with Mexico has to do with import/export inbalances to favor that deficit, I see no reason not to try to renegotiate it.
Again, I have no real working knowledge of these issues, just a cursory and uninformed opinion.
>If you really think about it. We only need this wall because of Mexico, so why should we pay if we dont have to?
If you really think about it, we don't need the wall at all because people will just dig holes underneath it, like they have with all the other walls and fencing we have built.
Indeed. And I'm sure they'll be happy to provide both. That's what allies are supposed to do. Sure will be a nice change from the past eight years of barely contained hostility.
The problem with your argument is that it presumes that a border can't be protected. As far as I could discover in my brief searches for information during the election, the border is fairly secure.
So, really the wall is more of a symbol than actual border security. Sadly, it's a symbol that resonates with a disturbingly large percent of the population.
People filmed at Florida HQ were still very awaiting for that wall.
ps: their enthusiasm got to me. Somehow, no matter how low Trump's speeches were, if he manages to spin calmer, safer, leaner lives for people in America I'd be happy. If. Because if it goes as I imagine, grand but failing plans, hope backpressure, the disillusion will be grandiosely sad.
Isn't that throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Individual data points of a regulation being used for a corrupt end, doesn't mean the regulation is worthless and should be removed.
I didn't intend to suggest throwing out the FDA. I was just making a point that, like everything, it isn't perfect and can be improved.
The point that EpiPen was given temporary monopoly by the FDA was almost completely lost in most of the news stories I read. It's a facet of the story that I think is important, but left out.
To be an informed citizenry, we need to know all the angles and be able to filter the BS. Kudo's to NPR for bothering to get the full story.
drug cartels are a problem in Mexico, they might lose substantial amounts of business due to the wall (lots of drugs are sold in the US), which would be good for Mexico
1) The whole border wall thing is just ridiculous. I thought he had given up on that. Why would Mexico have to pay for that? If the US wants to build a wall, fine, build it and pay for it. It doesn't make sense to demand that Mexico pay for it. It's like building a wall on your property and demanding your neighbors pay for it.
2) The FDA thing is scary. Regulations and processes are there for a reason. I'll be very wary if this goes through and I ever have to take any medication that's not established in the market.