I just gave it a quick read and already can see serious problems with it:
>On day 1 promulgate a "proposed rule" (regulation) amending 31 CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to include wire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States. Nothing is forcing people who send remesas to use wire transfers traditional "applicable financial institutions"-based methods; at least not until Trump clearly defines what an "applicable financial institution" is.
Monetary aggregates can be transferred in a number of ways that skirt Trump's Wal Tax:
Let's not forget Mexico is only one of the top recipient of remesas that come out of the US, so relations with other countries (one of them China) would suffer from this. The last part of Trump's proposed amendment can be easily circumvented with fake ID papers, which many illegals already have; the fact there would be an inventive to further break the law would result in a boom of increasingly more proficient providers of fake documentation and more widespread use of fake IDs to procure amenities only legal residents enjoy.
>On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect.
From this amendment, Mexico risks losing anywhere from 0% to 1% of its GDP -remesas trending a 4% to 6% of the GDP-, depending on how illegals prepare for it. It is very likely there will be government-sponsored educative resources to teach legal residents how to avoid the Wall Tax, and an increasingly tech-literate population in both the USA and Mexico, "upgrading" methods of monetary transfer is a hurdle that could be overcome with relative ease.
It seems relatively cheap for Mexico to just dish out the money Trump is asking, but there is no real incentive for Mexico to do so.
Ethan Brown
>Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules: There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs, and which we are obligated to respond to; the impact of any tariffs on the price imports will be more than offset by the economic and income gains of increased production in the United States, in addition to revenue from any tariffs themselves. Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage and will win the negotiation. By definition, if you have a large trade deficit with a nation, it means they are selling far more to you than the reverse - thus they, not you, stand to lose from enforcing trade rules through tariffs (as has been done to save many U.S. industries in the past).
This would negative impact USA's private sector and possibly could violate NAFTA itself but we can't know until specific details come to light. The lack of specificity is clear sign that it is nothing but a placeholder proposal, not fleshed out. It will be interesting to see a more detailed form of it later, since it will almost assuredly end up being just as bad for USA than it would be for Mexico.
Parker Moore
>Cancelling visas: Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Mexico is totally dependent on the United States as a release valve for its own poverty - our approvals of hundreds of thousands of visas to their nationals every year is one of our greatest leverage points. We also have leverage through business and tourist visas for important people in the Mexican economy. Keep in mind, the United States has already taken in 4X more migrants than any other country on planet earth, producing lower wages and higher unemployment for our own citizens and recent migrants.
Targeting """famous""" mexicans visas as a retaliatory measure, which more often than not would be artists/athletes, is sure to cause an international blowback against his administration and his country itself. Would this be start of an isolationist USA? I am curious to find out.
Cancelling visas will also impact southern USA economy significatively, since a big portion of affluent and middle class mexicans regularly chose to spend money on Texas, California and Arizona; up to $10.5B yearly based on 2013 data. The deal here being that while the typical mexican tourist spends much less than an european one (and also stays for much less time), the volume and quantity of visits and transactions from mexicans are much higher, from weekly casual mall tourism in border towns to bi-yearly planned leisure visits from the more affluent demographic.
Luis Cook
>Visa fees: Even a small increase in visa fees would pay for the wall. This includes fees on border crossing cards, of which more than 1 million are issued a year. The border-crossing card is also one of the greatest sources of illegal immigration into the United States, via overstays. Mexico is also the single largest recipient of U.S. green cards, which confer a path to U.S. citizenship. Again, we have the leverage so Mexico will back down.
Increasing the cost of visas seems to make the most sense of everything else he is proposing. Still even a small increase, coupled with anti-american PR/sentiment, would likely spur a decrease in visa demand. This again negatively affecting southern US economy, since new luxury spending destinations would be chosen by the affluent mexicans, and middle class mexicans (who make the bulk of foreign retail purchases on the southern border states) may find themselves discouraged from renewing their visas as they become increasingly aware of international online retailing.
So... How can this be done without doing enormous long-term harm to your own econ?
Ryder Brooks
Are you implying that illegal mexican day laborers who can't speak english are going to become crypto currency experts?
Nathan Foster
Not them, but they have sons who could or probably are already.
William James
Anytime they arrest an illegal immigrant they should just apply the RICO Act and seize all of his assets.
Anthony Peterson
That or 10k in fines, whatever is larger. Can we legally imprison illegal immigrants indefinitely if they can't pay?
Logan King
Yes, it's impossible to prevent all remissions, but enough of them would be stopped to make it more affordable for mexico to just pay for it. That's the point.
And as far as impacting our economy, any (admittedly regrettable) loss of income from legitimate and legal mexican tourists would be more than compensated by the savings in social safety net benefits that illegal mexicans consume.
Why is it so hard for mexicans to understand that we don't have a problem with legal mexicans (well, we do when american factories relocate to mexico to skirt paying american wages and obeying american environmental laws, but still think they should be entitled to unencumbered access to american markets, but that's another issue), but that illegal mexican immigration is a huge detriment to our country.
A quarter of the population of your country resides in our country. That's ridiculous. Never in any 'evil' colonial empire was such a thing even dreamt of.
Lincoln Green
>This would negative impact USA's private sector No, other way around. >and possibly could violate NAFTA Trump has said he wants to renegotiate NAFTA which he calls a very bad deal for the US or pull out of the nafta agreement citing the clause to do so.
>it will almost assuredly end up being just as bad for USA than it would be for Mexico. Mexico needs the US, the US does not need mexico.
What the tarifs/enforcement of trade rules will do is stop mexico from taking advantage of the US.
and that he plans to withdraw the US from the NAFTA deal if they (the nafta related nations) refuse to re-negotiate it. Citing the withdrawal clause in the agreement that allows the US to do this legally.
Blake Lee
>affluent mexicans, Those dont exist, dont even try.
Carson Rogers
>beaners >experts in anything besides poverty and crime
Tyler Thomas
the cost of the wall can be covered by forcing captured illegals to work to death in it's construction
Juan Adams
As much as it would negatively impact mexico, it would have undeniable detrimental effects to the US econ.
Nafta is not just US and Mexico.
google up mexican investment on us real state
for sure we cant match your shitposting expertise, abo
Jack Cox
wtf i hate the wall now
Aaron Gonzalez
>for sure we cant match your shitposting expertise, abo I kek
Lucas Morales
Israel's wall in the West Bank is 440 miles long and cost $2.6 billion. Israel's entire government budget for the year 2016 was $108.6 billion.
America's entire boarder with Mexico is 1,989 miles. That is 4.5 times longer than the entire length of the West Bank wall. The entire federal budget for the USA in 2016 is $3.999 trillion in expenditures. That is 36.8 times Israel's budget.
America can easily afford to pay for the wall on it's own.
Nicholas Rogers
Trump won't win primary.
Trump won't win nomination.
Trump won't win Presidency.
Trump won't build wall, it'll be bad for US more than Mejico.
Fuck off Taco Bell.
Brayden Phillips
It seems Trump's wall is a much more complex project than isreal's walls
Since it cant (i think) have minefields or machineguns turrets, its gonna need other kind of support and probably people living in it 24/7.
I know USA can afford it anyway, i just wondering if his plan to make mexico pay is just propaganda.
Thomas Campbell
>not until Trump clearly defines what an "applicable financial institution" is.
defined at the discretion of the chief executive and appointed staff.
duh.
Adrian Lee
>taco bell >anything mexican
how black are you?
Joseph Reed
>Mexicans won't build wall >NAFTA is repelled >All the already established companies will drop their multi-billion dollar assets and distribution networks without complaints
Keep dreaming kevin.
Matthew Williams
/poltards getting btfo by this mexican intellectual
Liam Moore
Don't worry, he can't.
Blake Perry
>because people doubted how stupid I am that means everyone else is just as stupid
Don't blame us for thinking better of you to not nominate Trump. That's on you.
William Jenkins
>can't have minefields or machine gun turrets you just wait
Jeremiah Jenkins
Canada will drop visas this year, we will arrive from there.
Thanks weedman.
Anthony Jackson
>it would have undeniable detrimental effects to the US econ. We have our shit made in India instead. Totally "detrimental"
Dominic Cook
Actually, I can see Trump putting armed soldiers at our boarder. It makes quite a bit of sense, if you think about it. Mexican Cartels are a huge negative to national security. If he kicks all illegals out and doesn't allow them back in, the Cartels hold on the US would decrease dramatically. Just one of a thousand good reasons to stop Mexico from leaching off the US.
Joshua Davis
Nope.. trump has already called for stronger vetting of french and german citizens.. because of the migrant influx.. he'll do same with illegals even if you bounce through one nation like canada to vet yourself and soak yourself in another nations colors to pretend to be something you're not.
But thanks for stating your intentions.
not very sharp wit.. If US withdraws that would indicate that other nations refuse to negotiate.. the companies will have to take their complaint to them.
NAFTA is a nation to nation trade deal, not a corporate deal. They will simply need to adjust, same as they have had to adjust and leave the US because of the recent US policies that have been screwing american businesses.. the busineses will simply adjust to the new political environment which makes it better to be in the US if you want to sell your product in the US.
Jaxon Rogers
So? We'll just build two walls, and make Mexico pay for both.
Grayson Nelson
Young people, specially middle/upper class consume a lot of US content, and buy from online US retailers. This is possible because even after the currency conversion, shit aint that expensive due to NAFTA.
The entirety of inventory from costco/wallmart is american here; all depends on NAFTA agreements.
Basically every big american corporation has already branched into Mexico, and they all depend on NAFTA to be competitive with local products.
I always assumed that would be a requirement. Even the most expensive wall wont do much if you leave it unguarded.
Christian Russell
>NAFTA is a nation to nation trade deal, not a corporate deal. They will simply need to adjust,
Its not "simple" when you are messing with the long term financial projections/expectation of entire retailing, agriculture and transportation sectors. Can it be done? For sure, but it won't be pretty. And it would also disrupt trade with Canada, who now seems to be pretty chummy with mexico for some reason.
