# Whether Mexico could even be coerced into paying for a wall or not **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2016, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whether-mexico-could-even-be-coerced-into-paying-for-a-wall-or-not/757115 "2016-06-11T15:38:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 7
**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:** [June 18, 2016, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whether-mexico-could-even-be-coerced-into-paying-for-a-wall-or-not/757115/121 "2016-06-18T17:47:31Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > If the Donald really, really, really wants to do this, what he’ll have to do is require banks to levy _all_ funds transferred funds to Mexican residents, regardless of the mode of transfer, unless the transfer is demonstrated to be in the class of unlevied transfers. So a business wishing to pay for goods or services supplied from Mexico will have to show the bank an invoice, or suffer the levy. Someone wishing to pay wages to Mexican employees, or interest on a Mexican debt, will have to show that he owes the wages or the interest, or suffer the levy. Americans travelling to Mexico and wishing to pay accommodation, etc, costs incurred there would need to produce invoices or suffer the levy. And so forth. > > That would work; it’s how financial restrictions on internationally-sanctioned states are imposed. It would be a significant administrative burden on banks and, more to the point, on American individuals and enterprises doing any kind of business with Mexico. Since the payments that are actually to be levied are only about 0.1% of total US payments to Mexicans, it would be a massive, massive tail wagging a pretty small dog, and I doubt that the Americans affected would put up with it for very long. Yes that’s how you have to do it, and how it’s done in case of many countries with capital controls (typically on money going out to anywhere) which sometimes only apply to individuals or at least there are usually different rules and limits for business/institutional investment flows. But as far as tail wagging the dog, if you really wanted to just collect money related to commerce with Mexico, and didn’t mind generally putting a damper on it, you’d simply apply the fee to all transfers from US to Mexican entities. IOW simply erecting a non-tariff barrier of collecting a tax on all US funds transfers to Mexico is consistent with Trump’s generally clear two pronged idea of not only stopping illegal immigration from Mexico but reducing trade with Mexico which he claims lowers the US employment level and standard of living. Whether that could be done under the WTO and other international agreements the US has committed to, whether Congress would or would have to support such a measure, whether Trump will ever be president, those are all good questions. And I completely accept the point that it’s a fantasy that any measure to ‘get foreigners to pay’ is not going blow back on Americans. Populist demagogues convince people in many countries that foreigners are causing their problems and can be made to pay restitution, and it’s pretty much always false. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2016, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whether-mexico-could-even-be-coerced-into-paying-for-a-wall-or-not/757115/122 "2016-06-18T21:01:18Z")
> [@The\_Lurker\_Above](#): > > _Someone_ in the US thought it was worthwhile to send [$235.7 billion](https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html) worth of stuff in 2015. Excuse me for interpreting that as an existence proof. That’s foreign **TRADE.** Not buying retail at Ralph’s and paying USPS to ship the beans to Mexico. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![The\_Lurker\_Above](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Lurker\_Above](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Lurker_Above)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whether-mexico-could-even-be-coerced-into-paying-for-a-wall-or-not/757115/123 "2016-06-19T00:00:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That’s foreign **TRADE.** Not buying retail at Ralph’s and paying USPS to ship the beans to Mexico. :rolleyes: Yes, I’m aware of that. It kind of strengthens my point that it’s trade. Shall I use smaller words and spell it out? I’ll try to keep em to two syllables or fewer for you. People in business like money. They like money so much they try to maximize (3 syllables, crap, ‘make as big as possible’) the amount of money their business makes. That means that they do things that they think will make them more money before they do things that make them less money. At least one business, has at least one thing, that they think they can physically move from the US to Mexico (this costs money) and sell for more money than selling that same thing in the US. And this happened often enough that $235.7 billion worth of stuff was traded from the US to Mexico in 2015. 2015 was not an unusual year for this, so at least one business has thought that this was the _best use_ of their time, money, and effort for a long time. That they have been doing this for years and years is pretty good evidence that they are right. An individual sending a small care package will obviously have higher per-unit shipping costs, but they don’t have to show a profit like the business does, and any levy on moving money just makes it that much easier to find something that can be sent usefully. (‘usefully’ in this case meaning something like a good the Mexican family actually wants where “US retail + shipping” \< “Mexican retail - levy”) Remember that this whole line of argument comes in response to your confident assertion that a few simple banking regulations will make it easy to identify and apply the levy to remittances. I don’t believe that’s true, it will be far to easy to hide the remittances in all the other trade (especially since I can’t imagine any non-US government will be all that enthusiastic about helping). But even if it was people don’t actually have to use the banking system, or even money, to move value around. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whether-mexico-could-even-be-coerced-into-paying-for-a-wall-or-not/757115/124 "2016-06-19T05:40:59Z")
> [@The\_Lurker\_Above](#): > > Yes, I’m aware of that. It kind of strengthens my point that it’s trade. Shall I use smaller words and spell it out? I’ll try to keep em to two syllables or fewer for you. I dont think you were. No, it doesn’t. It’s **TRADE.** Stuff shipped by the train and truck load, not mailed by USPS. Sure, personal insults really help your point. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![The\_Lurker\_Above](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Lurker\_Above](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Lurker_Above)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whether-mexico-could-even-be-coerced-into-paying-for-a-wall-or-not/757115/125 "2016-06-19T09:12:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I dont think you were. > > No, it doesn’t. > > It’s **TRADE.** Stuff shipped by the train and truck load, not mailed by USPS. > > Sure, personal insults really help your point. > :rolleyes: Would you prefer I sprinkle my responses with multiple sarcastic smilies? You have a very strange posting style if you wanted to keep the exchange snark free. Very well: USPS is magic:eek:. And I’ve never in this thread acknowledged that mail is more expensive than bulk shipping:smack:. Thank you for enlightening me:rolleyes:. Typing TRADE in bold and all caps was a fabulous refutation of my points, and the suggestion that I’m unable to read or comprehend own cite was masterful. In all seriousness I don’t see any new issues raised that haven’t been covered in my previous posts. Simply asserting that I’m wrong doesn’t leave a whole lot to respond to. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whether-mexico-could-even-be-coerced-into-paying-for-a-wall-or-not/757115/126 "2016-06-19T15:29:34Z")
> [@The\_Lurker\_Above](#): > > Yes, I’m aware of that. It kind of strengthens my point that it’s trade. Shall I use smaller words and spell it out? I’ll try to keep em to two syllables or fewer for you. > [@The\_Lurker\_Above](#): > > Would you prefer I sprinkle my responses with multiple sarcastic smilies? We would all like you to refrain from making this discussion personal. There are enough missed observations that have led to some exasperated comments, but you are the one being snide and making personal comments. > [@The\_Lurker\_Above](#): > > You have a very strange posting style if you wanted to keep the exchange snark free. Actually, his posts, to date, have not been littered with sarcastic personal comments, so you are the one dragging this thread down for no reason. Stick to the topic and leave the personal remarks for The BBQ Pit. [/Moderating] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whether-mexico-could-even-be-coerced-into-paying-for-a-wall-or-not/757115.md?page=6)