Maybe, but we wouldn’t have to deal with the ruthless savagery of the Canadian cartels.
First, IANAL, nor a constitutional scholar.
Let’s look at it the other way: what would makes it legal for the Federal government to stop a completely legal financial transaction, between two people with no criminal records, and to a country with which the U.S. has a longstanding, positive alliance?
It doesn’t work that way. If legislation was passed saying all private money transfers to Mexico will cease until Mexico pays for this wall you have to point out why it’s unconstitutional. Probably could even be done partially by executive order.
There’s the answer to the question, then. It (probably) is not legal today, and would require a new law to explicitly make it so. (I have no idea if an executive order would be able to do so.)
My guess is that when he fails to do anything to harm the cartels, it will be because the cartels are giving him a cut of their action.
(I continue to be amazed at people who claim that Trump will be frustrated, when President, because he (supposedly) won’t be able to make money. Apparently these people believe that Trump will do business only when he can do so legally and transparently. An odd conviction!)
Except that such legislation would not be passed, because not everyone in Congress is an ignoramus who wears a deceased orange marmoset on his head and has absolutely zero knowledge of international affairs or, really, just about anything. But yes, if it were possible to do it by executive order and the orange one actually was elected president, then this could be part of his loose-cannon destruction of international relations, with appropriate consequences.
Interesting. I’ll note that, under that particular executive order, it appears that individuals sending money transfers to individuals in Iran was, in fact, apparently still legal.
Not that Trump would be bound to follow that particular structure in any executive order he might make.
Well, yes. If he actually went through with it he would flip it and allow corporations to move funds into Mexico but not individuals. Easy to gussy that up. “In order to stop the flow of money to drug cartels and “coyotes”…”
The cartels have the advantages of money and fear. They will find a way to get their money where it needs to be. Families back in rural Mexico or Guatemala, who might be depending on remittances from someone doing stoop labor in America… have no such advantages.
Perhaps making life a wee bit more difficult for the narcotrafficantes would be a good thing. But not that damn good! Taking food from the mouths of children is not essential for the safety of the Republic.
Maybe those FEMA camps will be put to good use after all? :dubious:
Crescent marking for Muslims would be more like it. Not long ago, I saw a Facebook comment from a woman who said she was a disabled Christian who would be willing to hide Muslims in the event of a Trump presidency - probably not something you want to post on Facebook, but too late now.