# DACA if Mexico pays for the wall. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 7, 2017, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750 "2017-09-07T19:25:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/81 "2017-09-15T13:46:07Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > There are times when the things that we expect to happen are not likely to happen. But if you tell me the sun isn’t going to rise tomorrow, you need to show some compelling evidence. Tariffs have always cost the consumer of the tariffing country. That’s the way that they work. They raise prices and lower choice. There is no way for them to do otherwise. They may hurt the exporting country, but that’s a side effect. The main effect of them is that they raise the prices that the consumer needs to pay. > > If you think that somehow, this time will be different than every other time, then it is on you to provide evidence about what is different here, not to assert that sometimes things will be different, maybe this will be one of those times. Of course it will increase the cost of Mexican imports to the USA. That is how tariffs increase domestic demand. It also generates revenue, in fact is was largely how the federal government generated revenue right up until 1913 when we implemented the income tax. All tax is a drag but tariffs place some of that drag on foreigners. Its not like we are pushing tariffs just for the sake of imposing tariffs, the idea was to impose tariffs to pay for the wall. And that is how we get Mexico to pay for the wall, sure they won’t be the only people paying for the wall but they will be subsidizing the wall. > [@](#): > > Won’t kill us, sure, a 5% increase of all the goods coming in from mexico won’t kill us. A 10% increase wouldn’t kill us. If we increased the price of all the goods and services that you receive by 100%, that’s still not going to kill you, is it? It’s not whether it will kill us, but whether it will harm us, which it will. We were talking about a trade war. And in a trade war with Mexico, we barely feel it and Mexico’s economy gets crushed. Mexico doesn’t start a trade war with us over a 10% tariff. They suck it up and curse and yell and scream and lower their prices to absorb some of the impact of tariffs on their consumers. > [@](#): > > Trade war would probably not destroy their economy, they have been developing other international trading partners, and it is largely our close partnership that has kept others out of the market. If China will take their goods, they will ship them to China. China? Really? Their main exports are cars, car parts, televisions, computers and oil. And in the aggregate, they don’t sell us a lot of oil. So which of those things that China makes cheaper and better does Mexico sell to China? Starting a trade war with us would cost them 5-10% of their economy in the short term. That’s a recession. > [@](#): > > Any damage that is done to mexico’s economy isn’t really good for us either. Intentionally destabilizing a large country on our border is not a wise move. We’re not, as long as they don’t retaliate to our tariff, they take a hit and that’s the end of it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/82 "2017-09-15T13:51:24Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Did you read my quote from Trump on this page? He said this morning that he was close to a deal, and that wall funding would come later. > > That seems consistent with what Schumer and Pelosi said was discussed. Of course, the White House staff are busy doing damage control with the rest of the Republican party, so they are insisting that there was no deal. > > Who do you believe what was discussed? Trump, Schumer, and Pelosi seem to have their stories more or less consistent. The White House staff is busy saying “LALALALA NOTHING HAPPENED LALALALA!” And you believe the staff? If they can get the Dream Act without giving up anything they weren’t already willing to give up for it, that’s great. I think the wall is a huge waste of money but I am willing to waste a little money to get through this presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/83 "2017-09-15T13:54:10Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > More from Trump this morning: > > [https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/trumps-dealing-on-daca-sparks-confusion-shifting-alliances-on-capitol-hill/2017/09/14/c9b2c904-994c-11e7-82e4-f1076f6d6152\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/trumps-dealing-on-daca-sparks-confusion-shifting-alliances-on-capitol-hill/2017/09/14/c9b2c904-994c-11e7-82e4-f1076f6d6152_story.html) > > Strange how Trump said he wants “extreme security” on the border. He could have said he wants a wall. He didn’t say he wants a wall. And he said that Chuck and Nancy agree with him on security (again, not the wall). > > **Damuri** , can you acknowledge that Trump, as of today, isn’t pressing your proposal for DACA in trade for a wall? Who knows what he may say tomorrow, but it’s clear that for now, he’s sold out your idea. I don’t think he was EVER pressing my proposal (tariff t get Mexico to pay for the wall). I don’t want the wall but if I was Trump I would try to trade DACA for the wall or something that would look like more of a win to my base. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/84 "2017-09-15T15:42:46Z")
Who is your base? It isn’t immigration reform advocates, that’s for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/85 "2017-09-15T16:14:11Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > I think some of the people arguing against you are being so absolutist because it’s Trump. I wonder if they all have the same apparent ‘free trade or die’ attitude when it’s Berne-ite leftist populist protectionism (other countries have to have our labor laws or we won’t trade with them etc) rather than Trumpist rightist populist protectionism. I think that’s probably right. Some people can’t see straight when Trump is involved. I couldn’t see straight until about February. > [@](#): > > However as to ‘ask X’ protectionism can ‘make sense’ in a given political system depending whose interests that system mainly serves, without serving the best interests of the greatest number in the country. So can the flavor of “Free Trade” pushed by multinational corporations. > [@](#): > > The other advanced countries, particularly in Europe, are not necessarily examples of a lot more protectionism than the US already has. In some cases yes. For example the EU really does subsidize and protect its agricultural sector more then the US does (though the US does more than Australia and New Zealand do). That’s manifestly not good for the greatest number of people in terms of getting the best products at the best prices. It is good for the protected/subsidized farmers. And it’s arguably good in a more intangible sense for others that ‘a traditional way of life is preserved’. In fact some more recent EU policies (subsidy and protection are not totally distinct so it isn’t really changing the subject) specifically subsidize maintenance of the traditional landscape etc. > > So observing there is protectionism doesn’t mean it’s an optimal policy in ‘greatest good for greatest number’ terms. It could be far from that. It usually is actually (where often a squeaky wheel industry like steel gets ‘anti dumping’ tariffs that come out to $100,000’s per job ‘saved’ in steel plants). It’s just not a big enough problem to be obvious to the average voter, diffused interest v concentrated. Well if we 're talking about protectionism generally, I would throw currency manipulation into the mix as well. > [@](#): > > Back to the Mexico/WALL though, I agree your opponents are over simplifying to claim the incidence of a tariff would automatically be 100% on US consumers. As you’ve said that’s not true in a general case, depends the degree of various elasticities. It should be obvious that if Mexico and all other countries supply US import X the Mexican makers aren’t automatically free to raise their price 10% with a 10% tariff. Nor is the reaction the same as _all_ producers experiencing a 10% increase in cost. There will be some tendency for Mexican providers to reduce their profit, hence to that extent ‘Mexico’ pays. Although the other part I didn’t see anyone mention is that in theory the value of Peso would also drop if the US imposed new tariffs and Mexico didn’t. Others did point out that there’s a game theory tit for tat aspect as well though. But the reality is that the jobs tied to exports to the US are more politically weighty in Mexico than jobs tied to exports to Mexico are in the US. That comes from the relative size and diversification of the economies, plus the trade deficit (Mexico is simply sending more goods directly on a bilateral basis). > > For the record I tend toward being a free trade ‘extremist’ at least compared to the general skepticism about trade on a lot of the left (going back at least to Clinton needing the GOP to pass NAFTA in the first place) and Trump’s new non-conservative right. Not a real extremist, just relatively. Of course there will be some protectionism in the real world. A relatively leading country like the US thinking it can pull itself ahead using protectionism though is basically a delusion. I don’t think we can pull ourselves ahead with protectionism (although we are well positioned to enter into tit for tat if someone tries to engage in protectionism against us). But I think that Trump could claim that he got Mexico to pay for the wall if he paid for it with a tariff on Mexican imports. To get the3 DREAM Act, I think I would give up on the wall, its giving up a stupid symbol in exchange for 800,000 lives. I probably would resist the tariff tbh. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/86 "2017-09-15T18:13:05Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > No, it’s not. You’re acting like Mexico has some great elasticity of production costs, and their cut will go down so that prices on the USA side stay the same. Not only will that not happen, it’s not even the point of protectionism. Protectionism against Mexican goods is not about Mexico taking a pay cut. It does not punish Mexico. I didn’t say there would be no price effect on the US side. in fact the increase in Domestic production probably wouldn’t happen unless there were an increase in the cost of Mexican goods. The point of protectionism is to give your domestic producers at a competitive advantage over foreign producers. And yes, Mexico will suck up some of the cost of the tariffs. Its just how the supply demand curve works. As the tariff increases the cost of Mexican products the demand will drop and you will get fewer Mexican producers selling to the US at lower prices. Its kind of how the supply and demand curve reacts to tariffs. > [@](#): > > Here’s the first order effect: > > 1. Mexican goods cost more in the USA. Yes but not 10% more. Mexican producers eat part of that. > [@](#): > > Second order effects: > > 1. Things that the USA only gets from Mexico cost more. > 2. Things that the USA can get from not-Mexico might come from not-Mexico. > 3. The USA consumer is losing money on this deal, and/or also buying less from Mexico. Value loss all around. Or people are shrinking their profit margins. Consumers might lose but their incomes might rise. > [@](#): > > Third order effects: > > 1. Mexico starts exporting more to countries not the USA. Why aren’t they doing that already? > [@](#): > > 1. Mexico maybe exports a little less overall. But why, when they can export to the 90% of the world that’s not North America? Because they would already be doing that if that was an option. I’m not sure if you’re talking about a trade war scenario or a 10% tariff scenario anymore. > [@](#): > > 1. USA production of a few things goes up–jajajaja no, I’m just kidding, USA labor costs x exchange rate means (non-prison-labor) USA producers don’t even compete, never mind. Wait. We import things from Mexico that we ALSO produce domestically. Like cars. How do you figure we can’t compete on a product that we are already competing in? > [@](#): > > Where is, “Mexico sells for less” in that? They’re not a captive supplier; China has money; France has money; Nigeria has money; Argentina, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, freaking Sweden, will all buy from them and not insult them so much. Because, once again, if they could sell to those countries, they would already be doing it and increasing their overall production and exports, its not like they’re churning along at full employment and can’t produce any more than they do right now. If they were, they would be trying to deport Americans from Mexico. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/87 "2017-09-15T18:58:22Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If they can get the Dream Act without giving up anything they weren’t already willing to give up for it, that’s great. I think the wall is a huge waste of money but I am willing to waste a little money to get through this presidency. The USA can ask the Federal Reserve to create some new monies for the project. I’m not sure how you even can “waste money” at this level. But, in Texas at least, it’s a waste of _high-value productive land._ Of that there is a limited supply. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/88 "2017-09-15T20:14:38Z")
It seems that Damuri Ajashi doesn’t realize that many of our exports to the USA are produced in USA owned factories, largely the auto industry. So he may want to take that under consideration when vehicles built here for your car companies suddenly become 10% more expensive and they lose customers to automakers from Asia and Europe. Or will Ford or GM be able to absorb much of the 10% he feels Mexican businesses will absorb in order to compete? We import a very large amount of auto parts from the USA, if demand for autos built here due to a tariff decreases, where will the American companies sell their parts? The poster seems to have simple answers for complex issues. But it really isn’t quite so easy. Trump promised we will pay. The only people that believe him are incredibly stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/89 "2017-09-15T20:28:30Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > The USA can ask the Federal Reserve to create some new monies for the project. As a factual matter, this is incorrect. Congress must approve funding for these things, per Article I section 9. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/90 "2017-09-15T21:22:40Z")
I’m sorry, I realized today that I’ve been conceding the false identities in the very premise of this policy proposal. It has sounded like the xenophobic camp Trump plays to wants to punish “Mexico” for Mexican migrants into the USA. So they want a wall (on USA soil) and a tariff against Mexican imports. That’s confused all around. The migrant workers, the Mexican government, and manufacturers in Mexico are three different categories of person. Trump talks like they’re all one organization that he can “punish” with a wall (again, on our soil, not theirs) and tariffs. We’ve been trying to explain that tariffs are just a domestic tax. Maybe they hit Mexican businesses; but not that much. Even if they did “punish” the owner and workers of a factory in Sonora, they don’t “punish” the government, and they don’t “punish” the migrants. Now, maybe it’s not really about immigration, despite the rhetoric. What if you want to “punish” an employer who moved his factory to Mexico? Well, you’re “punishing” (ostensibly) all the native Mexican businesses that did no such thing, for no fault of their own. Meanwhile, the business that moved to Mexico can relocate again to Jamaica or Colombia. What was gained? There is no serious protectionist régime that targets only one foreign country. This whole proposal is a joke. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/91 "2017-09-15T21:30:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > As a factual matter, this is incorrect. Congress must approve funding for these things, per Article I section 9. Well, yeah, but I’m saying at that level money can practically be _printed._ In theory, the Fed could create helicopter money to subsidize the increased taxes to pay for the wall; not that they would. In any case, a giant wall across one of the world’s hotter deserts and down through prime agricultural land would be a sort of Keynesian stimulus, albeit a stupid, destructive, and presumably deadly one. Losing money on it, as such, is not the concern. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/92 "2017-09-15T22:37:24Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > It seems that Damuri Ajashi doesn’t realize that many of our exports to the USA are produced in USA owned factories, largely the auto industry. So he may want to take that under consideration when vehicles built here for your car companies suddenly become 10% more expensive and they lose customers to automakers from Asia and Europe. Or will Ford or GM be able to absorb much of the 10% he feels Mexican businesses will absorb in order to compete? We import a very large amount of auto parts from the USA, if demand for autos built here due to a tariff decreases, where will the American companies sell their parts? The poster seems to have simple answers for complex issues. But it really isn’t quite so easy. > > Trump promised we will pay. The only people that believe him are incredibly stupid. See my explanation above. But I believe those arguing against Damuri Ajashi are tending to be more simplistic than he. Most of the counter arguments leveled against DA IMO either a) set the goal posts as _only_ Mexico pays as a result of an X% tariff levied for the ostensible purpose of ‘Mexico pays for THE WALL’. I think your comments, though correct more than not as far as they go, fall in this category. or b) seem to believe the incidence of an X% tariff would be 100% on US consumers and 0% on anybody in Mexico at all. That’s unlikely to be correct. Trump might at least symbolically/metaphorically be saying a) (but take Trump seriously not literally remains good advice in general IMO). But I’ve read DA’s comments as more subtly pushing back on the idea many posters seem to hold that such punitive tariffs wouldn’t in _any sense_ accomplish ‘Mexico pays’. He hasn’t denied US consumers, or investors (as you suggest) would also pay. I take it DA is less free trade oriented than I am generally (putting scare quotes around the term free trade is usually a giveaway on that 🙂 ) Scare quotes aren’t needed because nobody who is realistic expects 100% free trade all the time, or claims free trade helps everyone all the time with no losers ever. It’s just that in general it helps more than it hurts, and politically driven protectionist policies are as a rule disproportionately expensive and counter productive. Especially in the context of relatively advanced economies which would include Mexico’s level as well as the US. However again I think DA makes a good point that if a punitive tariff on Mexico over illegal immigration from (or now more often through by third country nationals) Mexico to the US, which in some sense is what this comes down to, were not making ‘Mexico pay’ in any sense of the term, that might make it want act more to curb such activity and not just say it’s all the US’s problem, why would anyone in Mexico be against it? Again I didn’t see DA say it wouldn’t cost the US anything. I didn’t see him say that the tariff would cost less to US taxpayers than just making them pay through US federal outlays. I didn’t see him say a wall per se, or anything else even, actually had to be built at all. 🙂 Again I think the over simple absolutism has tended to be on the other side of the argument. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/93 "2017-09-15T23:32:38Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > However again I think DA makes a good point that if a punitive tariff on Mexico over illegal immigration from (or now more often through by third country nationals) Mexico to the US, which in some sense is what this comes down to, were not making ‘Mexico pay’ in any sense of the term, that might make it want act more to curb such activity and not just say it’s all the US’s problem, why would anyone in Mexico be against it? Again I didn’t see DA say it wouldn’t cost the US anything. I didn’t see him say that the tariff would cost less to US taxpayers than just making them pay through US federal outlays. I didn’t see him say a wall per se, or anything else even, actually had to be built at all. 🙂 Again I think the over simple absolutism has tended to be on the other side of the argument. How should our government “act more to curb” people who have the right to freely transit our country? If you want to stop people from entering your country then simply punish your own citizens that lure them with the opportunity to work. The same goes for drugs. Demand spurs supply. Why doesn’t your government wise up and take find an intelligent way to deal with these problems? After all, both the employers of undocumented workers and drug abusers have a great deal of responsibility for these issues. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2017, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/94 "2017-09-16T14:57:40Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > How should our government “act more to curb” people who have the right to freely transit our country? If you want to stop people from entering your country then simply punish your own citizens that lure them with the opportunity to work. The same goes for drugs. Demand spurs supply. Why doesn’t your government wise up and take find an intelligent way to deal with these problems? After all, both the employers of undocumented workers and drug abusers have a great deal of responsibility for these issues. Those are your opinions and within reason as far as I’m concerned, not to say I necessarily entirely agree. But it’s somewhat off the original point. The Trumpist view assumes as a central proposition it _is_ partly Mexico’s responsibility to address illegal immigrants and drugs crossing the US border and it hasn’t done so as effectively as it might. Which I don’t think is a wholly unreasonable opinion either. But the question here is _if_ one takes the position that the drug and illegal immigration problems on the US-Mexico border are partly Mexico’s problem and it hasn’t been doing enough to address them, whether punitive tariff policy by the US could put pressure on Mexico (‘make Mexico pay’) to modify its policies. Many of the posts have IMO over simply and unrealistically quoted free market boilerplate (notably at odds with the general left leaning skepticism about markets on most other issues on this forum) to seem to claim such a policy would not in any way ‘make Mexico pay’, but rather 100% fall on the US. Not so likely. In fact such a policy would in some sense ‘make Mexico pay’. Would it be ultimately successful in creating changes the Trumpists seek? Harder to say. Enough so to offset the other costs to the US? I tend to think not. But it’s not an obvious fact either a) that the cost of such policies would fall 100% on the US or b) Mexico is doing everything any country could be expected to do to address the underlying illegal immigrant and drug export/re-export from Mexico problem, and those are instead 100% the US’s problem. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2017, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/95 "2017-09-16T15:13:35Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > The USA can ask the Federal Reserve to create some new monies for the project. I’m not sure how you even can “waste money” at this level. As **Ravenman** points out, this isn’t the way it works. The FRB injects money legally (quantitative easing) in response to the economy (i.e. unemployment), not Presidential wishes. With the economy doing well, FRB-held treasury debt has held steady since Fall 2014; they’ve announced plans to start selling this debt. OTOH, I think there are already three vacancies on the Federal Reserve Board, and another 2 or 3 terms set to expire in 2018. Heaven knows what the FRB will look like when the Orange Clown and his enablers fill those vacancies. $6.3 trillion of U.S. treasury is held by foreigners, including Mexicans. Perhaps that’s what Trump meant by “Mexico will finance the Wall.” At the last Treasury report, Mexico owns $32.3 billion of U.S. Treasury debt. (As recently as this February that total was $49.5. What’s the reason for this sudden liquidation? 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/96 "2017-09-18T12:55:35Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > It seems that Damuri Ajashi doesn’t realize that many of our exports to the USA are produced in USA owned factories, largely the auto industry. So he may want to take that under consideration when vehicles built here for your car companies suddenly become 10% more expensive and they lose customers to automakers from Asia and Europe. Or will Ford or GM be able to absorb much of the 10% he feels Mexican businesses will absorb in order to compete? We import a very large amount of auto parts from the USA, if demand for autos built here due to a tariff decreases, where will the American companies sell their parts? The poster seems to have simple answers for complex issues. But it really isn’t quite so easy. > > Trump promised we will pay. The only people that believe him are incredibly stupid. Are you talking about Maquiladoras? Maquiladoras are tariff free zones. They are free from MEXICAN tariffs because anything produced there is solely for export back to the USA and not for domestic consumption within Mexico. You think all those jobs making Chrylsers in Mexico are going to vanish into thin air, and be replaced by more jobs in Korea making Hyundais? Then why do we make any cars here at all? Hell the why does Hyundai build factories and make cars here in Alabama? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/97 "2017-09-18T13:12:01Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > Scare quotes aren’t needed because nobody who is realistic expects 100% free trade all the time, or claims free trade helps everyone all the time with no losers ever. It’s just that in general it helps more than it hurts, and politically driven protectionist policies are as a rule disproportionately expensive and counter productive. Politically driven “free trade” (scary quote) can also be exceedingly expensive and counter productive. Every other country sends their best economists and businessmen to negotiate trade deals with us, we send our best lawyers (as in litigators) and diplomats. Our economists generally push more open borders even if we open our doors more than the other guy on the theory that everything tends to even out in the end. I suspect that China will show us exactly how you exit a protectionist policy without watching the trade balance reverse itself. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/98 "2017-09-18T13:22:11Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > How should our government “act more to curb” people who have the right to freely transit our country? If you want to stop people from entering your country then simply punish your own citizens that lure them with the opportunity to work. The same goes for drugs. Demand spurs supply. Why doesn’t your government wise up and take find an intelligent way to deal with these problems? After all, both the employers of undocumented workers and drug abusers have a great deal of responsibility for these issues. I think many on this board agree with you that we should defang the drug cartels by legalizing domestic manufacture and sale of things like marijuana. Trump for all his faults has succeeded in reducing illegal immigration by making this a less hospitable place for illegal immigrants. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/99 "2017-09-18T20:51:45Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Are you talking about Maquiladoras? Maquiladoras are tariff free zones. They are free from MEXICAN tariffs because anything produced there is solely for export back to the USA and not for domestic consumption within Mexico. > > You think all those jobs making Chrylsers in Mexico are going to vanish into thin air, and be replaced by more jobs in Korea making Hyundais? Then why do we make any cars here at all? Hell the why does Hyundai build factories and make cars here in Alabama? Who said anything about maquiladoras? And don’t you think it is a bit arrogant to explain a Mexican on what is what in our own country? What do the call it in the US when men talk down to women? Mansplaining or something like that? Should we call this gringosplaining? The second part of your post makes absolutely no sense. The American automakers in Mexico must turn a profit for their owners or they wouldn’t be here. Obviously the vehicles leaving plants here are cheaper than what they can be built for in your country. I am not sure of the economics of why Hyundai or any other Asian maker builds vehicles in the US but I would think transportation costs from Asia to N. America play a big role. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2017, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750/100 "2017-09-18T21:41:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think I do and I bet the Mexicans do too. Do you think they’ll want to respond with tit for tat? If we go full blown nuclear trade war with Mexico, they go from losing a few billion dollars out of their economy to losing 15% of their economy while we would lose something like 1%. If it’s such a nifty idea, why hasn’t the USA done it already? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daca-if-mexico-pays-for-the-wall/795750.md?page=6)