Trump Reveals How Mexico Will Pay For Wall

a reply to: nobunaga

Whelp, since we are leaving the realm of evidence backed discussion and entering the realm of racist and partisan backed speculation, I think I'm done here.

a reply to: Sillyolme

It would not be "all the banking laws" that would have to change.
It would only require someone to prove their identity to send money across the border or overseas.
Think of it like when you get your license or some other action that requires you to solidify your identity.
It would be that type of process when you try to send money.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm sure you're not alone in thinking that.
I tend to look at it in the sense that, what they are doing is illegal and it is up to the people in charge of enforcing the law, to do so.
What this type of proposal does, is that. It (tries to) enforce the law.
This isn't the best example, but it's all I can think of right now:
Would you consider it an invasion of privacy, when you buy beer or cigarettes and you are asked to provide a form of identification to prove that you are legally able to do so?

That's the way I am thinking about this. You go to the bank, or wherever you need to go and they ask you to prove that you are legally allowed to send money to another country.
Just like buying booze, if your of age, it is not a big deal to prove it.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Interesting proposal from someone usually adamant about keeping the government out of our lives. I guess when it comes to oppressing "others", it's ok for the government to meddle.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Can't be done...
Privacy laws. Overseas banks do not have to follow U.S. laws.
See Zurich... as an example.

a reply to: Sillyolme
Good Point.
But wouldn't they have to use a bank in the US to get the money to an international bank?
Or can they just start out with one?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you noticed in the last post, I compared this to getting ID'd for smokes. Something I have no problem with.
Also, the "others" you speak of may be here illegally.
I ship things to mexico quite a bit at my job. There are numerous forms to be filled out for taxation purposes and material tracking purposes. My company has to provide a tax ID number among other identifiers.
I don't feel like asking the same for money transfers is anything too terrible.

a reply to: nobunaga

Did you even read the "study" from the anti-immigration propaganda mill that is the CIS or do you prefer the dimwits at the Free Beacon misinterpret for you? Did you happen to read what I said?

Illegal immigrants are not eligible for means tested welfare programs for themselves. They can collect certain benefits for their American born children (WIC, food stamps, free school lunches, Medicaid).

What part of that is unclear? Which part of the claims made by the CIS disagree with what I stated?

From the CIS "study" (my bold):

Programs Examined.

Like our prior analysis, the major welfare programs examined in this report are Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), the Women, Infants, and Children food program (WIC), free or subsidized school lunch, food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP), Medicaid, and public housing and rent subsidies.3

Immigrant Eligibility for Welfare.

The appendix to the companion report includes a long discussion of the regulations and laws covering immigrant welfare eligibility. As it makes clear, the 1996 welfare reform changes and other laws are designed to limit immigrant reliance on welfare programs — particularly legal immigrants, since illegal immigrants have been barred from welfare for a long time. These policies include the long-standing "public charge" doctrine that bars entry of immigrants likely to need welfare and the deportation of those who become dependent on it, a five-year bar on most new legal immigrants accessing welfare, and a "deeming" requirement that sponsors' income be considered before welfare can be received.

and further down:

Equally important, immigrants, including those illegally in the country, can receive welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born children. As a result, both our prior report and this one show that immigrant households make extensive use of the nation's welfare system, often at significantly higher rates than native households.

Update your uninformed opinions please — it's frustrating to see people blithely repeating the same garbage.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Out of curiousity... what percent of illegal immigrants have US born children?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You seem against a wall and boarder control.

The Mexicans I am concern with are the illegal ones. i don't care about legal ones they can do what they want. So yes i think my question on the and pointing out that Illegals won't participate in the census does negate your point on that as those numbers do not repent the group I am concerned with.

As for your other point, idc if Mexico benefits or not, I am concerned about the US first. If you are breaking a law by coming here I don't want you here. If Mexico wants to do business with us they will pay the taxes and pay for it one way or an other. My original point was we could do without their business and they will most likely have to pay for this wall as they are more dependent on the US.

in short yes questions can negate points

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: gator2001

China is communist. This is America . We are not.

What does that have to do with anything I said? I was just saying it is possible and rather simple to implement, but there are ways around it.

Your statement is debatable, however. The sign on the outside might be different, but inside the similarities are striking. That would be off topic, though

I could also bring up the glaringly discriminate double standard of illegals getting welfare, by either having a child in the U.S. or by using fake SSN and ids versus what a U.S. citizen with a U.S. citizen child can get when abroad. Another angle not being viewed by the democratic style of media.

Bottom line is if you don't follow the rules, you can game the system and even get benefits rightly, but if you follow the rules, you get squat!

Back on topic...it is a requirement for the cash recipient in another country to have a valid ID when claiming the money. Why should the sender be any different? Wait! The sender does, too.

So, I guess the real question should be "How are they getting these IDs?"

Oh yeah...that fee that WU and other money sending companies get from the transaction. So, second question is "Are companies actually following guidelines or just making their fee?"

So my proposal that will appease the anti-communists that would rather do it the American capitalist way is to tax individual money transactions of non-citizens by 80%. The companies get their cut, the government gets the biggest cut, and the people get what's left over...and it would reduce the amount of people wanting to illegally cross the border. The American Way! /tongueincheek

Knee-jerk reaction: Here we go again. Trump's being racist again and he hates mexicans. He's going to stop mexicans from sending money to their families back home. Does he ever stop? WIll he ever learn? He's just single-handedly destroying his campaign. I just can't vote for this guy.

Then I say to myself: Remittances? I don't really know much about it except from my general knowledge that it's when people send money to home. What about others that don't read past the headlines? Is there more to this story because of my inherent trust of the media. So I research a little bit. Then, here we go again. Remittances seems to have been an issue before Trump mentioned it. There's actually billions of dollars being sent back to Mexico and if anyone thinks that your everyday mexicans is generating that much money is just wrong. Take this for example:

In the early 2000s, Arizona attorney general Terry Goddard and other state authorities suspected Mexican crime syndicates were moving money through Western Union wire transfers, and sought to seize money in Western Union accounts. The figures were mind-boggling, according to the prosecutors’ testimony: $500 million a year in Western Union payments from Arizona, and $2.5 billion a year in payments for people-smuggling overall. But Colorado-based Western Union contended a state attorney general didn’t have the authority to review wire transfers from other U.S. states directly to Mexico, arguing that it violated the privacy of their customers and overstepped limits on the state’s search-and-seizure authority. State prosecutors countered that the wire transfers constituted payment for crimes committed inside Arizona. In 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed that Goddard had exceeded his authority when he sought records of transfers exceeding $500 from 29 other U.S. states to Sonora, the Mexican state directly south of Arizona. But the following year, the company reached a settlement with the state, granting investigators in Arizona, California, Texas, and New Mexico “unprecedented” access to records of electronic payments to Mexico. Trump’s pledge to ‘impound’ remittance payments implies seizure, an act that would face a high legal bar to clear. Note that Goddard and like-minded prosecutors sought access to accounts being used by cartels and migrant-smugglers, not garden-variety illegal immigrants sending money home to their families Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...

So, there is actually is something going on there that needs to be handled, but just not Trump's way.

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you noticed in the last post, I compared this to getting ID'd for smokes. Something I have no problem with.
Also, the "others" you speak of may be here illegally.
I ship things to mexico quite a bit at my job. There are numerous forms to be filled out for taxation purposes and material tracking purposes. My company has to provide a tax ID number among other identifiers.
I don't feel like asking the same for money transfers is anything too terrible.

Hey. However you wish to justify it pal.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Justify? All I'm doing is explaining my position and trying to show you how I came to my conclusion on the issue.
Why don't you just stop replying if you don't want to even try to acknowledge anything I said about it?
What's the point of replying to a post, if your not going to address anything I wrote?

Instead of trying to use previous positions on separate issues against what I'm arguing here, or respond with vague, baiting one liners, take what I had said in the previous post and actually take a minute to think about what I said.
If you really feel I've got the situation all wrong, point me in the right direction in a way that inspires me to consider you position on the issue, instead of coming at me with an "I'm right, your wrong" attitude.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

I did do exactly what you asked. You are trying to justify, in your mind, why it is ok for the government to intrude on people's privacy by trying to put it on a similar mental comparison level as another example where the government intrudes on our privacy.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see what your saying now, with the justified statement. I misunderstood.
I honestly don't feel like having to provide an ID for something like this is an invasion of privacy, though.
It seems to me that it should be standard operating procedure for something like this.
and if you look at what
a reply to: mkultra11
said, this is potentially a way bigger problem than I had thought initially, when I started to consider cartel involvement and fake ID's being used.
I feel like there should be some way to try and stop money flowing out of the country illegally and it should probably be a priority. Regardless of it it helps Trump get his wall or who pays for it.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

I just see a slippery slope that isn't worth sliding down just because we are upset with our country's neighbor.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fair enough.