Trump takes on the sanctuary cities.

[Ben]

Maybe not "as great," but still a significant drain. Never forget Western Union and Dinero en Minutos. How many billions of dollars were sent to Mexico alone last year? That's all money that would otherwise have been circulating in our economy.

Sure. I was just looking a triage. The people who would come here specifically for handouts, besides being the biggest resource drain, are also probably the most likely demographic to commit crime, so handout elimination seems like a priority (and they can work on reducing it for citizens while they're at it).

I look at this as an analogy of our current CCW reciprocity discussion. We can hope for "ideal", but if something comes along that is a big step in the right direction, you take it.

[Scout26]

Maybe not "as great," but still a significant drain. Never forget Western Union and Dinero en Minutos. How many billions of dollars were sent to Mexico alone last year? That's all money that would otherwise have been circulating in our economy.

The number I have heard repeatedly is $25 billion remitted to Mexico every year.

The number I heard for the cost of the wall is $25-$30 Billion.

A 25% tax on all those transfers pays the wall by the middle of Trump's second term.


Trump has also called for a 20% tariff on all Mexican imports. Combined with the above and it could be paid off in a year...

Meanwhile in Chicago, Mayor Emanual doubles down on remaining a Sanctuary City, and doesn't want Federal help with the murder problem.  Trump wants to use the National Guard and send in Federal Agents to go after the gangs.   Maybe someone should tell him about "Project Exile".  I think that would be much, much more effective.  And federalize gun crimes, as the state plea bargains everything down, except of course, for law abiding gun-owners that make a mistake.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170125/BLOGS02/170129899/defying-trump-emanuel-doubles-down-on-sanctuary-city-talk

[HankB]

The problem is that one amendment requires a constitutional convention. Once there's a constitutional convention, the left could pile on with a bunch of other amendments we don't want to see -- like repealing the Second Amendment.

Nope.

"The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. "

Source:   https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

The proposal then becomes an amendment when ratified by 3/4 of the states. (38 out of 50)

[DittoHead]

Trump has also called for a 20% tariff on all Mexican imports.

Y’all Know Who Ultimately Pays Those Tariffs, Right?

Taxing remittances back to Mexico might be the better option, although I'm not sure the logistics involved in that are feasible.

[HankB]

. . . Trump wants to use the National Guard and send in Federal Agents to go after the gangs . . .

Even though the NG has been used in the past for things like riot control and disaster assistance, using it for wholesale law enforcement might raise posse comitatus issues. And . . . unless they're armed with both guns AND ammo and operating under realistic rules of engagement, they'll just become another group of victims. (If the guardsmen are issued guns but not ammo, the gangs will soon have military grade weaponry.)

[Scout26]

Y’all Know Who Ultimately Pays Those Tariffs, Right?

Taxing remittances back to Mexico might be the better option, although I'm not sure the logistics involved in that are feasible.

Yes, I do know who pays.  However, I don't think it will get that far.  Mexico will fume and bluster, but ultimately back down.  If it does come to pass, while prices may go a bit higher, we will either buy from China or *gasp* make it domestically. 

Mexican piss beer and Tequila might be the only exceptions.   Causing economic harm to only drunks and fools... 

[DittoHead]

However, I don't think it will get that far.  Mexico will fume and bluster, but ultimately back down. 

Back down from what, leaving NAFTA? That I'll agree with, they have no reason to. Back down from not paying for the wall? I doubt it.

we will either buy from China or *gasp* make it domestically. 

Neither of which pay for the wall.

Securing the border is a reasonable pursuit, and condensing that down to "build the wall" makes for a great slogan and easy chants for rallies. But the whole "Mexico is gonna pay for it" thing was absurd from the start and he should have dropped it long ago.

I'm just telling you, there will be a payment, it will be in a form. Perhaps a complicated form..

I think he even knows he should back away from it now, but just can't do it.

[Hawkmoon]

If the $25 billion per year number for money sent to Mexico siphoned out of the U.S. economy is at all accurate (and it has been cited in enough different sources to probably be in the ballpark), a 20% or 25% tax on such "remittances" would generate more than $6 billion annually. That would pay for putting a lot of people to work building a whole lot of wall/fence.

[makattak]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article128984759.html

Miami-Dade mayor orders jails to comply with Trump crackdown on ‘sanctuary’ counties

Immediate results.

[DittoHead]

If the $25 billion per year number for money sent to Mexico siphoned out of the U.S. economy is at all accurate (and it has been cited in enough different sources to probably be in the ballpark), a 20% or 25% tax on such "remittances" would generate more than $6 billion annually. That would pay for putting a lot of people to work building a whole lot of wall/fence.

I agree that the remittance idea at least has potential, others aren't so optimistic https://www.cato.org/blog/tax-remittances-wont-pay-border-wall

[MechAg94]

Regardless, we should not be giving Mexico trade benefits with the US while we have this immigration problem (not even mentioning the drug trade stuff). 

Increased tariffs with Mexico (if kept small) wouldn't have a huge impact.  The wire transfers of money is another matter.  I hear that isn't taxed at all. 

[DittoHead]

we have this immigration problem

most of it is our problem.

It’s one thing to stress getting control of our borders. Even those who believe that immigration is a net positive for the nation agree that illegal immigration must be better policed. But cracking down on illegal immigration should mean getting our own house in order. It should mean policing all of our borders, not just the one with Mexico, and it should mean due diligence about visa overstays. Visitors who overstay their visas amount to at least half, and probably closer to 60 percent, of those entering the country illegally now. They arrive at airports, not across the Rio Grande. The great wave of illegal crossings from the south crested in 2007 and has declined steadily since. As immigration hawk Mark Krikorian noted in 2015, “Border crossings really are way down.” Well, some border crossings are way down, others not. More Mexicans cross the border heading south now than north. In other words, net migration from Mexico is negative.

[T.O.M.]

My interest in this right now is purely legal.  Mayor of San Fran was on CNN spouting off about how they will sue .gov if any funds are withheld.  I look forward to watching such a case happen.  Will a federal judge find that local governments have a right to federal funding?  Or will a federal judge laugh as the case is thrown out, ruling that cities have no right to federal funding?  Should be fun to watch (for a warped mind like me who likes law stuff).

[Angel Eyes]

Will a federal judge find that local governments have a right to federal funding?  Or will a federal judge laugh as the case is thrown out, ruling that cities have no right to federal funding?

That may depend on which President appointed the judge.

[MillCreek]

most of it is our problem.

Seattle is very far from the Mexican border.  I have seen media interviews with local immigration/border personnel who state that the majority of illegal immigration in this area are people from Asia overstaying their tourist/student visas, and they all arrive by plane.

[wmenorr67]

Seattle is very far from the Mexican border.  I have seen media interviews with local immigration/border personnel who state that the majority of illegal immigration in this area are people from Asia overstaying their tourist/student visas, and they all arrive by plane.

Ok so then give them the option of either a plane ticket home or a rowboat.

[Hawkmoon]

I agree that the remittance idea at least has potential, others aren't so optimistic https://www.cato.org/blog/tax-remittances-wont-pay-border-wall

So what? I'm sure one effect of taxing those "remittances" would be to significantly curtail the amount of money sent out of the United States to Mexico (and other Latin American countries). Money that isn't sent out of the country remains in the country (:duh:). I fail to see a downside in not sending billions of our dollars into other countries' economies with nothing gained in return.

[Hawkmoon]

Seattle is very far from the Mexican border.  I have seen media interviews with local immigration/border personnel who state that the majority of illegal immigration in this area are people from Asia overstaying their tourist/student visas, and they all arrive by plane.

Connecticut is pretty far from the Mexican border, too. Connecticut has a huge illegal alien population (in terms of percentage, not raw numbers), and that's mostly Hispanic. New Haven (think Yale University and you have your answer) is a sanctuary city. Danbury, CT, is notorious for having storefront operations where small contractors can drive up in the morning and "hire" workers by the day, right off the sidewalk. All paid in cash, no records, no paper trail.

[MechAg94]

So what? I'm sure one effect of taxing those "remittances" would be to significantly curtail the amount of money sent out of the United States to Mexico (and other Latin American countries). Money that isn't sent out of the country remains in the country (:duh:). I fail to see a downside in not sending billions of our dollars into other countries' economies with nothing gained in return.

And how much of that money is the lawn guy sending money to his mother versus drug delivery mule wiring money back to his bosses. 

[Hawkmoon]

And how much of that money is the lawn guy sending money to his mother versus drug delivery mule wiring money back to his bosses. 

Dunno.

Does it matter? Whoever sends it, for whatever reason, it's taken out of the U.S. economy.

[Hawkmoon]

http://ctmirror.org/2017/01/25/ct-a-likely-target-of-trumps-new-immigration-policy/

Here's the way leftists view it:

Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said he is trying to determine if and how Trump’s actions would affect the state.

“My staff is reviewing the executive order and gathering other information, and so we are not in a position to comment in detail at this time,” Jepsen said. “I remain committed to taking action within my authority to protect Connecticut residents whose rights are threatened by this or other actions of the Trump Administration.”

I remain of the opinion that people who are in the U.S. illegally basically only have the right to not be beaten or starved while awaiting deportation. They categorically do NOT (IMHO) have any right to be protected by the state or municipal government from being held accountable for violating federal law. I might even go so far as to argue that, since they are not legal residents, they are technically not residents at all -- they are trespassers, or squatters.

[Scout26]

That may depend on which President appointed the judge.

USSC will be 5-4 (at least) by the time that suit wends it way up...

[Hawkmoon]

USSC will be 5-4 (at least) by the time that suit wends it way up...

Not if Chuck Schumer has anything to say about it ...

[Scout26]

Not if Chuck Schumer has anything to say about it ...

There are at least 10 (IIRC) Democrat US Senators that are up for re-election in 2018 that come from red states.  Schumer can can bluster all he wants, but those senators will be reading the tea leaves and counting votes back in their home states...

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/306210-10-senate-seats-that-could-flip-in-2018

[Monkeyleg]

Not if Chuck Schumer has anything to say about it ...

I've had it with Democrats blocking Trump's appointees, and potentially blocking appointment of justices. I think McConnell should just say, "Okay. Here's our nominee. No discussion or debate. We're taking a vote now, as we have a dozen appointees to confirm today".