Hacker News Reader

Comment by ben174 | Hacker News Reader

You can find more detail on how he plans to make Mexico pay for the wall here:

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf

Specifically, he will threaten to disallow wire transfer of money from US to Mexico by non-citizens. Since that is a revenue source they greatly depend on, he suggests they'd rather fund the building of the wall. If they agree to fund the wall, then the ban on transfers will go away.

View on HN

So Mexicans start using bitcoin, amazon gift cards, or something like that. Or we end up with "underground banks" that can effectively transfer money across the border without actually doing so, i.e., you buy a digital good at a physical location in the US, transfer it to a relative in Mexico, who then sells it back to the company at a slight discount for cash (which, as a side-effect, would be a great way to launder drug money).

Or I guess, you bounce money through Belize or something.

Either way, it doesn't sound very effective.

You realize this same logic could seemingly dismiss any regulation (assault weapons, child labor, tax evasion), right?

"People will smuggle illegal guns from abroad. Or buy the parts and assemble them. Or get a machine shop and make them."

A regulation, no matter its aim, does not require 100% compliance to be an effective deterrent. I'm not saying this plan will work, but a generic "people will get around it" argument is not illuminating.

>You realize this same logic could seemingly dismiss any regulation

Well, kinda, but not to same degree. Wired money is obviously way easier to smuggle than physical goods...

Sure; some rules are easier to circumvent than others. The real question is whether it's onerous enough to act as a deterrent, not whether some people will circumvent it.

In this thread someone said it's like trying to stop the import of illegal drugs. Regulations seem to work for Singapore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalenc...

> The real question is whether it's onerous enough to act as a deterrent, not whether some people will circumvent it.

Deterring what? "Illegal immigration" or "people walking across the border"? If it is the former, then that plan is just so stupid to be of any value. Banning transfer of money from US to Mexico to make Mexico pay for "building a 10 ft high border-wall" is ... wow, just saying that out loud feels weird.

(PS: I'm neither an American nor a Mexican!)

From Trump's perspective, Mexico benefits by having illegal immigrants in the US send money back to Mexico. There is no real reason for Mexico to enforce the border. Trump wants to deter this behavior (not enforcing the border) by assigning a cost (no more wire transfers back).

I'm not making a judgment here, just trying to clarify the worldview.

Operating a monetary transmittal service in the United States without implementing KYC-AML (which is what he is basing this on) is practically suicide. Even retailers will send you to customer service to complete a form for buying too many gift cards.

My thoughts exactly. I'm going to go launch a Spanish bitcoin buy/sell website.

And you will go to jail really fast for operating unlicensed money transfer service. They will also add something about facilitating terrorism to add a few more years to your sentence.

American law applies to Americans. I'll operate my Bitcoin website from Mexico, who would have every reason to protect me.

Only if mabbo is in the US, right?

Basically it's like saying you want to ban illegal drugs from entering the country.

Except drugs are physical while money doesn't have to be.

Which only makes banning transfers additionally backwards

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalenc...

Singapore has the lowest rates in the world. Sometimes regulations have the intended effect.

This falls prey to the same fallacious thinking as gambling with the house's money. Assuming we can extort billions of dollars from Mexico, that's money we could be spending on anything – why is a wall the best use for it? And if a wall is the best use for it, the government should be prepared to build it with our own tax dollars, regardless of whether we extort money from Mexico.

I believe the idea is that illegal immigrants are causing more than that amount in harm to our society, i.e. through free healthcare

Maybe this is a better way to look at it.

Candidate: "We're going to build a wall between us and Mexico. It'll cost us $7 billion."

Electorate: "Umm. That's a lot of money. Let's do something else with it."

If that's how people would react, they should react the same way even if we're getting the money from Mexico. Money is fungible, and as much as our hearts enjoy poetic justice, it shouldn't matter where it's coming from.

There are a couple of situations where we would still want it built, even if its cost exceeded what we were willing to pay ourselves. One is if this is a cooperative, non-zero-sum situation: if Mexico were getting some value from the wall, they might be willing to pay some of the cost, beyond what we can extract via tariffs and seized remittances. The other is if Mexico is terrible at negotiations, which is likely what Trump is assuming.

And this idea is painfully ignorant of the simple fact that illegal immigrants pay taxes just like everyone else.

Lower income people's taxes don't offset their use of government services.

The break even point is around 60k.

Then your problem is apparently with lower income people in general.

Illegal immigrants get free healthcare?

Hop the border, call 911. They have to pick you up and treat you. No SIM required for 911.

The wall is ridiculous in itself though. I'm looking forward to see what Donald Trump's wall does when they encounter Santa Elena Canyon. (https://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/secyn.htm)

Looks like the canyon would be a natural barrier. But if you have a small gap it seems like you could just build some guard posts at that gap.

The Big Bend area is just one natural area like that. Consider the Amistad Reservoir (http://cdn.onlyinyourstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/33...) for instance. Water levels there are about 1100 feet. Kind of hard to put a fence in the middle there. :)

Obviously I'm "sticking to the metaphor", but legitimately that Big Bend area is one of those reminders that this "wall" concept is ridiculous for other reasons. That area and others along the border awfully remote, which will make managing the infrastructure and obtaining people to work there a headache. It will also make building the actual infrastructure extremely challenging and probably quite expensive. Not that Trump would care, but it's certainly not an environmentally friendly proposal either.

If the economy is such where Mexicans still want to migrate, there's other possibilities. No wall will secure the sea for instance, unless you build that "wall" around the entire Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean. (Beachgoers won't be happy about that.) The wall does not stop exploitation methods such as visa overstays or smuggling in the heavier trafficked borders. Even the Berlin Wall -- well more fortified than any 2,000 mile could ever be -- was breached 5,000 times in its history, so there's a good chance that even these remote areas might get some activity.

How much is America willing to pay for "a wall" to stop the immigrants? Enough to wreck the economy? Well, that's one sure way to prevent Mexicans from crossing over. :)

America isn't paying for the wall

I do not support building a wall, nor building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it. However, if I was trying to get Mexico to pay for the wall, gosh darn it this document explains coherently how to do it! You can't deny that the administration is goal-oriented.

Not to sound like a "bleeding heart" liberal, but understand that the $24b per year in money that flows into Mexico from individuals living in the U.S. is money that goes to their families. The document even goes so far as to remind the reader that there is no social safety net in Mexico, which will compound the effect of cutting off income from family members living in the U.S.

Is that who we are?

Yes?

It's weird that you prefer the people who have broken your own laws to enter your country, to the ones who have tried to go through your lawful process and failed. Where is your bleeding heart for all the would-be immigrants who tried to go were rejected by your legal immigration officers, who similarly might have no social safety net?

You cannot treat all of the world's ills as your own. You may have decided that illegal immigrants are part of the American identity, but a lot of the voters for Trump have not, and are rallying against that. Unless you convince them to treat illegal immigrants as part of their own, it's unlikely you'll find a "bleeding heart" argument to persuade them.

My heart bleeds for the women and children living off wired money in Mexico, not for the men working illegally in the U.S sending them money. The families back in Mexico with no safety net are the ones who will suffer if we cut off Western Union as a bargaining chip. That is an argument made in that document in favor of the plan. People will suffer in Mexico, so Mexico will be more inclined to make a payment for the wall. The people suffering in Mexico - what law have they broken?

I haven't decided that illegal immigrants are part of the American identity, but I do consider the people not in America who are receiving money to be innocent bystanders (with the exception of drug money, but the cartels wouldn't be stopped by these sanctions anyway).

I see your point, and I see your concern. However, I don't think that concern alone is a stopping factor for implementing such a decision. That would mean that you cannot make progress in many bad situations, when people have begun to rely on them. As an example, I think Obama was right to pull out of Iraq, but he was criticized for increasing the instability there and the return of terrorist groups to it. The Republican support from the Rust belt is a similar example(moving from cheap to intellectual labor has been great for the USA's overall GDP, but has destroyed the livelihood of blue-collar workers).

That was the heart of my point - with a limited budget of resources, you simply cannot help anyone. At that point, you are faced with some philosophical questions - should I be maximizing some global 'goodness' factor, or should I be working for the local group that I am supposed to represent? In the end, the leaders of democratic countries are elected to represent the will of their voters, not to better mankind(unless that is what the voters want!).

If Trump and his supporters believe that a wall will improve the situation for the US and American citizens, then I don't think arguments about the welfare of others(whom they might even view antagonistically) will sway them.

I found different arguments much more persuasive - arguments that removing illegal immigrants would not bring jobs back to American citizens, because they were a net economic positive and creating demand as well as supply.

However, these arguments seemed to be drowned out by the loud, resonating narrative on how evil and racist the supporters of Trump's policy were, which I can only imagine hardened their resolve to get it through. An especially easy angle that Trump could pursue was the disregard of rule of law by illegal immigrant supporters, which I feel could have received a lot more attention and understanding from Trump's opposition.

Fair points all around. Thanks!

>You can't deny that the administration is goal-oriented.

Okay? So fucking what? Saying "Today I am going to do everything I can to make sure I shoot myself in the face" is also a "goal-oriented" approach.

I can't believe what is happening to my country.

Well, that's one way to get all of Mexico hooked on Bitcoin.

Hah! Great point!

Now is the time for a startup to emerge that makes Bitcoin _EASY_! Easy like my-grandma-can-do-it easy. This actually finally might be the thing that makes BTC!

... that makes BTC get shut down in the clear

Banks that make money (fees) from such international money transfers are not gonna be very happy with Trump.

This actually makes sense as a policy. Though I don't understand why he still thinks Mexico should pay for it. It just seems a bit dickish. Simply increasing the federal prison time for illegal immigrants (as suggested) would probably eliminate a lot of the traffic.

Why would you pay to imprison illegal immigrants? Also there's some amount of evidence that says increasing punishment doesn't necessarily act as increased deterrent to some crimes past a certain point.

A tall order, sir. Let's see the evidence!

Plenty of it sir: http://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx

> The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment.

> Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished

> Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime

Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=does+increasing+punishment+r...

They'll just run their cash over the border to Mexico, instead of sending it via electronic means. This has already been happening for years, although the vast majority of such cash running has consisted of illicit drug money. No reason why it couldn't expand to become the main way for illegal workers to get their cash heading south to their families, if there really were no other option.

Sounds like we should all be shorting Western Union stock. If he actually implements these controls, they will be the hardest hit.

Then they'll send money with Bitcoin.

How would they convert USD to Bitcoin? And before that, and before that, etc. at some point someone who's paying taxes is gonna have to engage in something that the IRS is gonna ask questions about.

When exchanging pesos is outlawed, only outlaws will exchange pesos.

Would the president have that authority?

How do you know if a wire transfer is from a U.S. Citizen?

Because it would enact legislation that would require ID before wire transfer? I'm not sure if this is currently done, but it may upend laws (in CA) re: getting a driver's license if you are an illegal citizen. I can't imagine that it would be required to submit a birth certificate or social security card for wire transfer.

In retaliation, Mexico files a complaint through NAFTA and the WTO, and starts taking retaliatory action. A 10% immediate surtax on the value of US owned property would be a good start.

And eventually the trade war turns into a shooting war. We've seen the script before.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com