Home » Controversial Topics » Politics » Protection money

Protection money

July 24th, 2016 at 8:57:56 PM permalink

Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569

Quote: Pay for the Wall

It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following:

On day 1 promulgate a "proposed rule" (regulation) amending 31 CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to include wire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States.
On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest. They receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens. It serves as de facto welfare for poor families in Mexico. There is no significant social safety net provided by the state in Mexico.
On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect.

I would be surprised if the majority of the approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States comes from illegal aliens.

But let's suppose it is a valid number. It isn't really unreasonable that millions of illegal Mexican aliens are sending billions of dollars home in remittances.

Is he kidding if he thinks the Mexican government will pony up $5 billion in one day to protect wire transfer of remittances from illegal aliens. Isn't it more likely that a huge cash smuggling business will develop (or even bitcoins).

July 25th, 2016 at 4:48:10 AM permalink

Dalex64

Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 3
Posts: 3687

So he wants to threaten, but not actually implement, a law to stop the flow of money that the government of Mexico never sees, as it is person to person money and likely never taxed, and thinks that will make them pay in order to continue to not see any money?

Why not just threaten to tax that 24B at 50% so that the 'illegals' themselves would pay less one time for the wall?

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

July 25th, 2016 at 6:15:55 AM permalink

Nareed

Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545

Quote: Pacomartin
Is he kidding if he thinks the Mexican government will pony up $5 billion in one day to protect wire transfer of remittances from illegal aliens. Isn't it more likely that a huge cash smuggling business will develop (or even bitcoins).

Nah!

When ahs a black market developed when any lawful activity has been declared illegal? Was there a black market for booze during prohibition? Is there a black market for drugs during the ongoing drug war? Did illegal immigrants come from the Americas after restrictive quotas were imposed?

And just because it happens every time, you think it's going to happen again?

Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER

July 25th, 2016 at 6:17:29 AM permalink
Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545	Quote: Dalex64 Why not just threaten to tax that 24B at 50% so that the 'illegals' themselves would pay less one time for the wall? The president has exactly zero authority to tax. At most he can ask Congress to pass legislation doing so. But then seeing as this is Trump whom we're talking about, who knows? Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER

July 25th, 2016 at 12:12:04 PM permalink
Dalex64 Member since: Mar 8, 2014 Threads: 3 Posts: 3687	Quote: Nareed The president has exactly zero authority to tax. At most he can ask Congress to pass legislation doing so. But then seeing as this is Trump whom we're talking about, who knows? He doesn't have to impose a tax, he just has to promulgate a "proposed rule" like pacomartin suggested. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

July 25th, 2016 at 12:41:19 PM permalink

Nareed

Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545

Quote: Dalex64
He doesn't have to impose a tax, he just has to promulgate a "proposed rule" like pacomartin suggested.

I'm not sure he can do that, as it amounts to illegal confiscation of property.

Now, as to money smuggling, the possibilities are endless. For starters, you don't need to transfer money via wire transfer. There are plenty of options like Paypal, money orders, bank deposits and even checks. the cost will go up, yes, but nowhere near 50% of the money transferred. Or go simple and ask a loyal US citizen to make the wire transfer to Mexico, and give him $5 in exchange. And then there's Bitcoin.

Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER

July 25th, 2016 at 4:50:22 PM permalink

Pacomartin

Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569

Quote: Dalex64
So he wants to threaten, but not actually implement, a law to stop the flow of money that the government of Mexico never sees, as it is person to person money and likely never taxed, and thinks that will make them pay in order to continue to not see any money?

Why not just threaten to tax that 24B at 50% so that the 'illegals' themselves would pay less one time for the wall?

One estimate of the total amount of remittances to families around the world from the USA is estimated at $120B. More than $23 billion went to Mexico, $13.45 billion to China, $10.84 billion to India and $10 billion to the Philippines, among other recipients. The World Bank has a much lower estimate of $54 billion. The differences is primarily that the World Bank uses only official sources.

This idea is certainly not new to Trump. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., and Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., introduced legislation early last year that would require remittance transfer providers to force migrants who wish to send money overseas to prove they are legal residents of the U.S.

Hawala is a transfer system that is associated with Southern Asia and Muslim countries. It operates outside of traditional money transfers.

Hawala: The Working Man’s Bitcoin

A popular method is to simply open a bank account in the USA and have your relatives in Mexico withdraw from it using an ATM card. The reason it is not as popular as you would think, is illegals are reluctant to open bank accounts, and you need to keep a minimum balance. It also assumes that your relatives will withdraw only the amount of money that you have agreed upon.

July 25th, 2016 at 6:01:10 PM permalink

Fleastiff

Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831

My understanding of the Hawala (Trust) currency transfer system is that any notations made are returned when the transaction is completed.

I guess its similar to the way bookies in the USA settle accounts as described in 'Lay The Favorite'.

I'm sure a great many Texas corporations show revenue that comes from drug money not merchandise sales. See the early episodes of Weed, a serial about a San Diego widow who turns to drug selling for financial reasons and makes good at it.

July 26th, 2016 at 12:09:00 AM permalink

Pacomartin

Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569

There are currently a $3000 limit on transferring money where you have to provide documentation. So what you are really talking about is lowering the limit.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674677.pdf

What GAO Found
Financial institutions, such as money transmitters and depository institutions that provide remittance transfers—funds sent from individuals in one country to a recipient in another country—are subject to anti-money laundering (AML) requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). For example, these remittance providers must report suspicious and other transactions, and obtain and record information for each funds transfer of $3,000 or more. Remittance providers GAO spoke with identified challenges related to BSA compliance—including monitoring large amounts of remittance data to identify and prevent illicit activity, and keeping up to date with the changing behavior of criminals. Further, some banks have ended account relationships with money transmitters—which need bank accounts to conduct business. Money transmitters going out of business could lead remittance senders to use informal methods that are less detectable.