A large portion of the $134M is tied to the Merida Initiative which provides funds to Mexico to help reduce the flow of drugs into the US. Note, not Mexican drugs into the US, just the flow of drugs through Mexico.
I saw an interview on TV of a woman dressed in Trump regalia who was confident that it would be like the Great Wall of China and patrolled by the military. “Of course the Mexicans will pay for it,” she said.
Last year a panel in my garden fence blew down and it cost £50 to replace. The house next door (it’s a shared fence) is rented and I had to negotiate with his letting agent - it took six weeks to get an agreement and I had to pay up front before he reimbursed his half. How that will play out between governments I have no idea.
I believe Theresa May is keeping a close watch in case she has to rebuild Hadrian’s Wall.
In the Cayman Islands the government imposed a tax on remittance service international transmission of funds such as Western Union or Moneygram. Hasn’t stopped the expat workers lining up every payday to send money home. They are paying the tax, currently set at 2% with a maximum of CI$10 (US$12.50) per transaction.
A similar tax in the US would likely provide a steady stream of income that otherwise would have largely gone to Mexico.
Moderator Action
Since Trump hasn’t revealed how he plans to pay for his wall, there’s not much factual information to be had here. I think this thread will do better in IMHO where people can speculate more freely and can express political opinions as well.
Moving thread from General Questions to In My Humble Opinion.
Patrolled by the military on the US side? I’m pretty sure that it’s not legal for the United States military to operate within the actual United States boundaries. Now if the military patrolled the Mexican side of the wall that would make more sense as that would be a proper (if highly unpopular) use of the military.
Once again, the proposal is to tax illegal aliens. If we know that someone is an illegal alien and tax that person instead of deport that person isn’t that indicating that the current government would rather have them here than deport them?
It’d be an easier build. Have you seen what Hadrian’s Wall looks like?
Even granting that the wall has been “mined” for stone (although those remaining sections have awfully flat and finished tops), the wall wasn’t anywhere hear as tall as the one TRump seems to be supporting
How funny is it that we talk about a physical wall, when a economic wall is the solution.:dubious:
It’s a great wall, the best wall ever people are saying. So great that nothing gets by it. Once the wall is built we can pay for it with the money we save by firing all the border patrol agents. Border patrol is going to get tired of all the winning.
Maybe it is all theater and will not happen but he’s making a show of it:
And Scotland’s going to pay for it!
I presume these are legal workers, and with jobs above minimum wage, and the tax is on remittances sent to any country.
It would seem that a tax limited to remittances sent by illegal residents just to Mexico would be very easy to get around. First of all, how are you going to know it’s being sent by an illegal resident? Second, even if you could figure out who’s illegal, most illegal residents should be able to find some legal resident to send the money through. And if it’s just remittances sent to Mexico, you could transfer them through some third country.
I really thought that the border wall would be an idea that got dropped quickly, like the idea of prosecuting Hilary. Now that this thread is not in GQ, what do y’all think about it? I’m just blown away that he actually is wanting it, it seems like such a horrible idea all the way around. Is Congress dumb enough to go along with it?
I’ll make an early prediction that they will fund short segments of walls, near places where the most people cross illegally. The distance covered will be on the order of 1% of the total border distance.
I don’t think there’s any doubt he’s going to continue the policy of building barriers (fences and/or walls) along particularly vulnerable sections of the border. (This article has some photos of existing barriers in San Diego.)
The theater part is “Mexico is going to pay for it.”
I just heard “tax” without a specified amount. I’ve also seen a proposal to block (not confiscate) wire transfers out of the country unless the person making the transfer can prove legal status.
Perhaps money in possession of illegal immigrants is the proceeds of crime - working in the country when not permitted to do so. Sending it to Mexico is therefore money laundering. They also simply work their way through every bank account in America looking for ones belonging to illegals.
It’s a great country (again) and the laws can be made to do whatever Il Duce wants.
So how do you prove that the person making the transfer is the owner of the money being transferred?
It seems like that proposal just provides a great new business opportunity for people with impeccable legal credentials and relatives (real or imaginary) south of the border. The average remittance is fairly small (~$300), and it’s no great hurdle to prove legal access to that much money.
Look, Remittances to Mexico are huge. Mexico absolutely needs those, without them the nation would be hurting.
It’s about $25Billion. so a 1% tax (which is already in place in some states) would bring in $250Million a year. Yes, that would pay for the wall if they took their time. A 2% levy would bring in 500MM, a 4% a cool billion. The wall should cost 15-25 B, or 20 years with a 4% levy.
Keep the levy low enuf and it would be too costly to avoid it.
When the GOP controlled all of Washington last time during the Bush years they looked into building a wall like Trump proposed and determined the cost and maintenance of made it completely impractical. If anything the costs are higher now.
ETA: This is beyond the fact that the is inherent racism in wanting the wall; illegal immigration from mexico is at a low point; and most don’t cross the boarder that way any way.
I fail to see how taxing people living in the US actually qualifies as “making Mexico pay.”
If I plan to give you $10, but instead I deduct $1 from that amount and give it to, say, Cecil, have you given Cecil $1? Not in any universe that I have lived in.