Trump reveals how he would force Mexico to pay for border wall

[jimnyc]

Donald Trump says he would force Mexico to pay for a border wall as president by threatening to cut off the flow of billions of dollars in payments that immigrants send home to the country, an idea that could decimate the Mexican economy and set up an unprecedented showdown between the United States and a key regional ally.

In a two-page memo to The Washington Post, Trump outlined for the first time how he would seek to force Mexico to pay for his 1,000-mile border fence, which Trump has made a cornerstone of his presidential campaign and which has been repeatedly scoffed at by current and former Mexican leaders.

The proposal would jeopardize a stream of cash that many economists say is vital for Mexico’s struggling economy. But the feasibility of Trump’s plan is unclear both legally and politically, and it would test the bounds of a president’s executive powers in seeking to pressure another country.

In the memo, Trump said he would threaten to change a rule under the USA Patriot Act antiterrorism law to cut off a portion of the funds sent to Mexico through money transfers, commonly known as remittances. The threat would be withdrawn if Mexico made “a one-time payment of $5-10 billion” to pay for the border wall, he wrote.

“It’s an easy decision for Mexico,” Trump said in the memo, on campaign stationery emblazoned with “TRUMP Make America Great Again!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-would-seek-to-block-money-transfers-to-force-mexico-to-fund-border-wall/2016/04/05/c0196314-fa7c-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html

[CSM]

Hmmm...not a bad idea especially if the "remittances are collected from ILLEGAL immigrants.... money confiscated that was gained in the commission of a crime and all that....

[Noir]

Trump said he would threaten to change a rule under the USA Patriot Act antiterrorism law

I'd love to see the 'connect the dots' on the policy paper. That started with 'How do we make Mexico pay for this wall' and concluded with 'Change anti-terrorism law'.

[jimnyc]

I'd love to see the 'connect the dots' on the policy paper. That started with 'How do we make Mexico pay for this wall' and concluded with 'Change anti-terrorism law'. [/COLOR]

anti terrorism, border protection, illegal immigrants. These things have been tied together for quite some time. And look at places close to your home, and you'll see just how important it is to keep illegal immigration right up there with anti-terrorism.

I'm honestly effing clueless as to specifically how he connects those dots - but putting them on the same piece of paper is already done.

[Gunny]

Donald Trump says he would force Mexico to pay for a border wall as president by threatening to cut off the flow of billions of dollars in payments that immigrants send home to the country, an idea that could decimate the Mexican economy and set up an unprecedented showdown between the United States and a key regional ally.

In a two-page memo to The Washington Post, Trump outlined for the first time how he would seek to force Mexico to pay for his 1,000-mile border fence, which Trump has made a cornerstone of his presidential campaign and which has been repeatedly scoffed at by current and former Mexican leaders.

The proposal would jeopardize a stream of cash that many economists say is vital for Mexico’s struggling economy. But the feasibility of Trump’s plan is unclear both legally and politically, and it would test the bounds of a president’s executive powers in seeking to pressure another country.

In the memo, Trump said he would threaten to change a rule under the USA Patriot Act antiterrorism law to cut off a portion of the funds sent to Mexico through money transfers, commonly known as remittances. The threat would be withdrawn if Mexico made “a one-time payment of $5-10 billion” to pay for the border wall, he wrote.

“It’s an easy decision for Mexico,” Trump said in the memo, on campaign stationery emblazoned with “TRUMP Make America Great Again!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-would-seek-to-block-money-transfers-to-force-mexico-to-fund-border-wall/2016/04/05/c0196314-fa7c-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html

Won't work. You got to cut off the people paying those illegals as well. Most are paid in cash and hand-carry the money home on weekends.

[Gunny]

I'd love to see the 'connect the dots' on the policy paper. That started with 'How do we make Mexico pay for this wall' and concluded with 'Change anti-terrorism law'. [/COLOR]

How would you know? Your border is and ocean.

[Bilgerat]

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14224754_1155728614503365_450696053636411827_n.jpg ?oh=9ea6ccf1ad2f6c3f163d3b50501054c5&oe=5850BC0F

[DLT]

Won't work. You got to cut off the people paying those illegals as well. Most are paid in cash and hand-carry the money home on weekends.

Either that....or they hand the cash over to yet another relative that is here legally to send back to Mexico. You're right. It won't work and it would never be allowed by the ingrained PC culture in DC.

So...what? We're supposed to now 'think' that Trump is a superman that can magically get everything done via Congress, even a Democrat controlled Senate, when no 'other' president has been able to overcome that obstacle except for Reagan? Trump ain't no Reagan, not now, not evah.

Or is Trump thinking he will pull an Obama with his phone and his pen?

[Gunny]

Either that....or they hand the cash over to yet another relative that is here legally to send back to Mexico. You're right. It won't work and it would never be allowed by the ingrained PC culture in DC.

So...what? We're supposed to now 'think' that Trump is a superman that can magically get everything done via Congress, even a Democrat controlled Senate, when no 'other' president has been able to overcome that obstacle except for Reagan? Trump ain't no Reagan, not now, not evah.

Or is Trump thinking he will pull an Obama with his phone and his pen?

If he cut off Federal funding to states with sanctuary cities, he could pay for his wall. Problem is, nothing is going to work if you don't man it and enforce it.

[revelarts]

I'd love to see the 'connect the dots' on the policy paper. That started with 'How do we make Mexico pay for this wall' and concluded with 'Change anti-terrorism law'. [/COLOR]


anti terrorism, border protection, illegal immigrants. These things have been tied together for quite some time. And look at places close to your home, and you'll see just how important it is to keep illegal immigration right up there with anti-terrorism.

I'm honestly effing clueless as to specifically how he connects those dots - but putting them on the same piece of paper is already done.



my head is exploding a little bit.

Ok "executive orders" given toooooo Western Union. toooo Bank of america, Citi Bank etc.... too stop PERSONAL international money transfers of WHO exactly? Or is it WHERE it's going.
ALL money to mexician accounts or just small accounts or just accounts with mexican names. "immigrants" Accounts? legal immigrants money? how do you check the accounts for that even?
what about expats living in Mexico getting pensions payments transferred, students in Mexico? travelers?
Legal transfers stopped? Is the transfer a crime? By what law can it be crime until we get money for a wall? What kind of "crime" is that?
Won't people just start mailing cash? what about Paypal, and other online transfers?

Here's something else, the banks have been caught (and fined-no jail) laundering BILLIONS of dollars in drug money OVER and OVER for years now .
If getting money transfers stopped where part of the presidents powers all this time WHY haven't any used this power to deal with THAT?! since we're so freaking serious about crime, the war on drugs, Mexican cartels etc?

Seems to me say the least this would be selective enforcement in the extreme out of the gate.

but wait minute, before we even get there, what about the constitution?
does the President have the authority by Executive order to do anything CLOSE to this without a congressional mandate? Or under current law?
What he's proposing is called SANCTIONS in any other context seems to me.

As far as calling it part of terrorism... Well I have to say it, I TOLD YA SO!
EVERY FREAKING THING the President wants to do can be SHOEHORNED down many americans throats if it carries the vague BS label of terrorism.
The president has dictatorial powers as long as he can run it under the cover of "terrorism!" The Constitution is meaningless.... Separations of powers dead...
because well ....you don't want to die do ya!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

my head is exploding a little bit.

Ok "executive orders" given toooooo Western Union. toooo Bank of america, Citi Bank etc.... too stop PERSONAL international money transfers of WHO exactly? Or is it WHERE it's going.
ALL money to mexician accounts or just small accounts or just accounts with mexican names. "immigrants" Accounts? legal immigrants money? how do you check the accounts for that even?
what about expats living in Mexico getting pensions payments transferred, students in Mexico? travelers?
Legal transfers stopped? Is the transfer a crime? By what law can it be crime until we get money for a wall? What kind of "crime" is that?
Won't people just start mailing cash? what about Paypal, and other online transfers?

Here's something else, the banks have been caught (and fined-no jail) laundering BILLIONS of dollars in drug money OVER and OVER for years now .
If getting money transfers stopped where part of the presidents powers all this time WHY haven't any used this power to deal with THAT?! since we're so freaking serious about crime, the war on drugs, Mexican cartels etc?

Seems to me say the least this would be selective enforcement in the extreme out of the gate.

but wait minute, before we even get there, what about the constitution?
does the President have the authority by Executive order to do anything CLOSE to this without a congressional mandate? Or under current law?
What he's proposing is called SANCTIONS in any other context seems to me.

As far as calling it part of terrorism... Well I have to say it, I TOLD YA SO!
EVERY FREAKING THING the President wants to do can be SHOEHORNED down many americans throats if it carries the vague BS label of terrorism.
The president has dictatorial powers as long as he can run it under the cover of "terrorism!" The Constitution is meaningless.... Separations of powers dead...
because well ....you don't want to die do ya!

AS ALWAYS, THE --IT CANT BE DONE CROWD SCREAMS OVER AND OVER AS THEY ALWAYS DO.
When the truth is it can be done-if enough force is applied to remedy the damn disease.
Te hell with them-they are criminals and its not our job to coddle and aid them in breaking our laws!
Wake the hell up from whatever damn fantasy world you are living in Rev!

You act as if they deserve the things every true citizen has!!
If so- why them and not the entire world?

You get lost in you own feel good, rhetoric and blindness.

I say start shooting them as they attempt to cross- just as other nations do.
Otherwise we have no nation--just open territory for anybody to invade!
And that is what is being done- eroding our national sovereignty by way of this lets give the illegals whatever they want and demand!

Too many have died to create, build and maintain this nation to let you and others just give it away.

If ever comes a day of reckoning--and justice prevails over those seeking to destroy this nation , then I think those walking in such abject ignorance and blindness will deserve whatever they get!
For they will get no mercy from me... they had better hope that I am not the one passing sentence over them for their treason, stupidity, greed, arrogance, blindness and total intolerance of decency.. ...-Tyr

[fj1200]

AS ALWAYS, THE --IT CANT BE DONE CROWD SCREAMS OVER AND OVER AS THEY ALWAYS DO.
When the truth is it can be done-if enough force is applied to remedy the damn disease.

I'm pretty sure that was the Dem rallying cry ever since the Republicans took back the House in '10. Executive Orders, the Courts, regulatory action, etc.

[revelarts]

AS ALWAYS, THE --IT CANT BE DONE CROWD SCREAMS OVER AND OVER AS THEY ALWAYS DO.
......-Tyr

Tyr, wait a minute sure IT CAN be done.
If your talking about "fixing immigration". But the questions are:
Is it constitutional?
Is it legal?
Is it the best way to do it.
and for some of us the question still comes up, is it right, moral and Godly?
Conservatives used to say those were important to for AMERICA and being "AMERICAN".

But yeah anything CAN be done.
Yes we can round up all known illegals and shoot them, that CAN be done.
We can deport them ALL, that CAN be done.
We can put all of them in the military for 7 years to earn citizenship.
we can sell/loan them all to Chinese factories.
We could ship them all to Afghanistan, Syria, and Arabia and Iran.
We could chop them up and use them for dog food.

But are ANY of those GOOD, constitutional, or the best ways to deal with it.

[revelarts]

I'm pretty sure that was the Dem rallying cry ever since the Republicans took back the House in '10. Executive Orders, the Courts, regulatory action, etc.
yes this.

When Obama just did stuff willy nilly with immigration conservatives RIGHTLY had constitutional problems with it. Obama's breaking the law ! "Making up LAW, outside of congress!" Yes, Exactly right.
But when Trump proposes "executive orders" left and right we hear stuff like, '
'...BooYah LETS TRY IT!.... ABOUT TIME somebody did SOMETHING!... DO IT and THEN well figure out how it's legal, but we all know OF COURSE it's LEGAL... because... "terrorism911!' and he's the commander and chief so, checkmate.
Do you want a country? Do you want to die?!...'

[Noir]

Yeah Revs taking y'all to task here, for folk that are so rowdy when you think the constitution is being mishandled by liberals/socialists/communists etc ya's are remarkably egar to praise concepts like 'the State and police should control what clothing your wear' and 'the State should be able to modify and expand anti-terrorism laws to stop its citizens from freely transferring their money when they have committed no crime, and are not even suspected of doing so.'
0,o

[NightTrain]

Yeah Revs taking y'all to task here, for folk that are so rowdy when you think the constitution is being mishandled by liberals/socialists/communists etc ya's are remarkably egar to praise concepts like 'the State and police should control what clothing your wear' and 'the State should be able to modify and expand anti-terrorism laws to stop its citizens from freely transferring their money when they have committed no crime, and are not even suspected of doing so.'
0,o


I suggest you actually read the article and what he said.


Starting on “day 1,” Trump writes, he would issue a warning to Mexico that unless it pays his desired amount, he will promulgate a new federal provision that would lead to a sweeping confiscation of funds sent by Mexicans in the United States who lack documentation of their “lawful presence.”

Why are you all getting your panties in a twist over Illegals sending illegally gained money back to their home country?

They should not be here.

They should not be working here.

They should not be sending money from here to another country.

Wages are supposed to go back into the economy here; that's how economies work. Sending that money elsewhere is a drain on our system and Mexico is reaping the benefits.

Trump is completely on the mark with this plan.

But lets be honest about what the real issue is here - it's Trump's plan, and therefore bad, right? Because NeverTrump, right? This childish bullshit grows tiresome.

[Noir]

I suggest you actually read the article and what he said.



Why are you all getting your panties in a twist over Illegals sending illegally gained money back to their home country?

They should not be here.

They should not be working here.

They should not be sending money from here to another country.

Wages are supposed to go back into the economy here; that's how economies work. Sending that money elsewhere is a drain on our system and Mexico is reaping the benefits.

Trump is completely on the mark with this plan.

But lets be honest about what the real issue is here - it's Trump's plan, and therefore bad, right? Because NeverTrump, right? This childish bullshit grows tiresome.

Moh that's good! He's only stopping the illegals sending money! Because they are going to force PayPal to get you to send them a scanned copy of your legal documents whenever you wana send monies to Mexico?

im getting my panties in a twist over a flagrant misuse of anti-terrorism laws, which you don't seem overly concerned about.

[NightTrain]

Moh that's good! He's only stopping the illegals sending money! Because they are going to force PayPal to get you to send them a scanned copy of your legal documents whenever you wana send monies to Mexico?

im getting my panties in a twist over a flagrant misuse of anti-terrorism laws, which you don't seem overly concerned about.


I've got news for you, Slick : Law enforcement agencies are in the Executive Branch. Guess who heads the Executive Branch?

That's right, the President. Enforcing our immigration laws is a duty of that branch.

Grabbing illegal money flowing out of the country is completely within the realm of such duties. In fact, I insist that our law enforcement agencies to actually enforce our laws.

[fj1200]

I've got news for you, Slick : Law enforcement agencies are in the Executive Branch. Guess who heads the Executive Branch?

That's right, the President. Enforcing our immigration laws is a duty of that branch.

Grabbing illegal money flowing out of the country is completely within the realm of such duties. In fact, I insist that our law enforcement agencies to actually enforce our laws.

I'm not so sure a change in the PATRIOT Act constitutes enforcement of immigration laws. Seems to be yet another expansion of government powers.

[NightTrain]

I'm not so sure a change in the PATRIOT Act constitutes enforcement of immigration laws. Seems to be yet another expansion of government powers.


Think so?

Review the many thousands of arrests involving the wiring of ill-gotten money out of this country. Many are the drug dealers & terrorist supporters languishing in Club Fed right now over such laws.

[fj1200]

Think so?

Review the many thousands of arrests involving the wiring of ill-gotten money out of this country. Many are the drug dealers & terrorist supporters languishing in Club Fed right now over such laws.

I do. There are immigration laws and there AML laws.

[NightTrain]

I do. There are immigration laws and there AML laws.


I don't care which laws are utilized as long as the illegals are stopped.

They're breaking the law. It needs to be enforced across the board with every single illegal.

[revelarts]

I could be wrong but I don't believe there are any laws against cash transfers of money.
Unless you're trying to deliberately conceal the origin which is 'Money Laudering' at that point. Some one who steals cash from an atm can walk into his bank deposit it and transfer it via bank/credit card, paypal or whatever to buy a coat from sweden or gold from mexico.
But the theft is the crime not the subsequent movement of the stolen cash via legal means.
In most cases of money transfers the origins of the funds are unknown but not concealed so there is no crime.
Being undocumented in the country is illegal. working undocumented is illegal. having money , like having food or clothes is NOT illegal. AN Undocumented worker giving money to the local church is not a crime neither is going to the McDonolds or even mailing it home.

plus I'm sure many Illegals have regular bank accounts.
I know they do, banks like Bank of American allow many to have bank accounts WITHOUT social security #s or other IDs while natural born citizens have to cough up 2 forms of ID at least. link (https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2015/jan/12/undocumented-immigrants-id-cards-new-york) link (https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/banking/undocumented-immigrants-bank-accounts/) --(BTW why haven't the banks been punished for aiding and abetting these horrific crimes.)

But seems to me if Trumps want a new nightmare of logistics law let him go to congress.
If he wants to be a dictator and just make of crap then let him go to.. well someplace else.

[revelarts]

https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimage s%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcRXf7fOzDEzYOkK6Hc6YQt5ZCyZhK1T 9zzsGtO8vdqHaMBW3DocHg&sp=9e97047887de5a13cf1f9cd535ae588d

But if you replace Obama with Trump,
well then it's OK.

In fact Trump is completely on the mark with this plan.

[Abbey Marie]

Yes, let's fret over the Constutional private property "rights" of illegals. And then equate that with the usurpation done by the Third Reich. That's so logical!

[revelarts]

Yes, let's fret over the Constutional private property "rights" of illegals. And then equate that with the usurpation done by the Third Reich. That's so logical!
"why do people need GUNS?! How many children have to die because of you're fretting over the constitution!? huh huh?"

Do you see the logic here?
it's the exact same authoritarian dictatorial BS.
Just ignore/defy the constitution in places where YOU feel it's important.

but but but ... illegals don't get the constitutional rights.
Sorry in the USA either you're covered by most or none.
If not then it's fine just to kill a person because she's illegally in this country as well then.
Since right to life and due process, does not apply because she's not a citizen.
It's fine for any U.S. citizens to steal from, kidnapped, torture, and rape anyone in the u.s.illegally.
Let's NOT FRET over illegals constitutional rights here.
those people have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS because they broke the law. and are not citizens.
therefore ANYTHING can be done to them at anytime, by the gov't or REAL citizens right?

Is that how it works?
I think you know it doesn't.

Conservative like to talk about the "rule of law", well here's an update, it also applies to HOW the gov't reacts to crime and criminals as well. Vigilante anything goes , --the marshals rounding up a posse to string em' up when we find em'-- justice is NOT "rule of law".

[NightTrain]

"why do people need GUNS?! How many children have to die because of you're fretting over the constitution!? huh huh?"

Do you see the logic here?
it's the exact same authoritarian dictatorial BS.
Just ignore/defy the constitution in places where YOU feel it's important.

but but but ... illegals don't get the constitutional rights.
Sorry in the USA either you're covered by most or none.
If not then it's fine just to kill a person because she's illegally in this country as well then.
Since right to life and due process, does not apply because she's not a citizen.
It's fine for any U.S. citizens to steal from, kidnapped, torture, and rape anyone in the u.s.illegally.
Let's NOT FRET over illegals constitutional rights here.
those people have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS because they broke the law. and are not citizens.
therefore ANYTHING can be done to them at anytime, by the gov't or REAL citizens right?

Is that how it works?
I think you know it doesn't.

Conservative like to talk about the "rule of law", well here's an update, it also applies to HOW the gov't reacts to crime and criminals as well. Vigilante anything goes , --the marshals rounding up a posse to string em' up when we find em'-- justice is NOT "rule of law".


Dude, just stop with the conspiracy crap already.

The illegals need to be deported. They should not be here.

They were illegally employed. Their illegally gained money needs to be confiscated if they cannot prove they earned the money legally. They did not pay taxes like everyone else has to.

Constitutionality has nothing to do with this. There are laws against what they are doing, and they need to be enforced.

End of story.

[Abbey Marie]

"why do people need GUNS?! How many children have to die because of you're fretting over the constitution!? huh huh?"

Do you see the logic here?
it's the exact same authoritarian dictatorial BS.
Just ignore/defy the constitution in places where YOU feel it's important.

but but but ... illegals don't get the constitutional rights.
Sorry in the USA either you're covered by most or none.
If not then it's fine just to kill a person because she's illegally in this country as well then.
Since right to life and due process, does not apply because she's not a citizen.
It's fine for any U.S. citizens to steal from, kidnapped, torture, and rape anyone in the u.s.illegally.
Let's NOT FRET over illegals constitutional rights here.
those people have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS because they broke the law. and are not citizens.
therefore ANYTHING can be done to them at anytime, by the gov't or REAL citizens right?

Is that how it works?
I think you know it doesn't.

Conservative like to talk about the "rule of law", well here's an update, it also applies to HOW the gov't reacts to crime and criminals as well. Vigilante anything goes , --the marshals rounding up a posse to string em' up when we find em'-- justice is NOT "rule of law".

Re: the 3 bolded points:
1. No. You're not. Unless you are a citizen. Which illegals are not by definition.

2. Stopping the export of money earned by illegals is not the same as killing them. Stop being illogically dramatic to try to make your point.

3. They have no Constitutional rights because they are here illegally, not because they broke the law.
You always seem to get exercised about people not being as upset as you. Being upset about it does not mean you are right; not being upset does not make us wrong. Or mean.

[revelarts]

2. Stopping the export of money earned by illegals is not the same as killing them. Stop being illogically dramatic to try to make your point.
It's completely logical.

it's how ours laws work.
Either you have a LAW that says '...the gov't can take illegals people money at a presidents whim...' or you DON'T.
if you DON'T have a Law then Congress has to make one. NOT the president.
it's being clear about the legal framework, I just plugged in punitive actions other than the proposed stealing of peoples money. At bit dramatic but it makes the point.

that's how the law works.
there are laws made by congress... not a president... that say it's illegal for them to be here.
there are punishments in the law for it.
Trump has every right and authority to enforce what's on the books now.
But he can't (shouldn't) make up $*** because he feels like it's a good idea.





3. They have no Constitutional rights because they are here illegally, not because they broke the law.
You always seem to get exercised about people not being as upset as you. Being upset about it does not mean you are right; not being upset does not make us wrong. Or mean.

well 1 reason I'm passionate about it because i am right in this case.
And it amazes me that conservatives and christians want to act like people who come to this country without proper papers have NO rights!
that blows my mind.

Even the declaration of independence talks about rights as being God given and INHERENT in ALL people. Not just people of certain citizenships.
these are the kind of ideals that make me love the country. At least what the country APIRES to be.
And when people act like they aren't real or can be dismissed with a wave of the hand, to me it's like killing the spirit of what America is suppose to be about.

Look, illegal immigrants DO in fact have constitutional rights.
the supreme court has ruled on it several times.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=118&invol=356), a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=189&invol=86) )

there are other cases as well.
this Idea that they don't have constitutional rights is COMPLETELY wrong.
No one here can pretend that illegals don't have rights just because they think "something should done" right away.
And Trump can't pretend that he has constitutional power to make up new LAWs.
That's NOT a presidential power. It's illegal for him to do it.
If he wants to do it then he needs to go through congress. If he's serious about "the rule of law" applying to himself as well as others that is.
If Not he can BREAK the LAW just like Obama did with his immigration edicts. Just like the people crossing the boarder without proper docs. they all will have broken the law at that point and deserve punishments proscribed by law.

look when Obama did it it was illegal.
period. Just because you and others LIKE Trumps idea it still does not make it legal or constitutional.


seems to me a GOOD president would be able to find a way to take care of immigration while staying within the law and the constitution.
Is that really too much to ask of a republican nowadays?

[fj1200]

Dude, just stop with the conspiracy crap already.

The illegals need to be deported. They should not be here.

They were illegally employed. Their illegally gained money needs to be confiscated if they cannot prove they earned the money legally. They did not pay taxes like everyone else has to.

Constitutionality has nothing to do with this. There are laws against what they are doing, and they need to be enforced.

End of story.

The Constitution always has something to do with it.


Re: the 3 bolded points:
1. No. You're not. Unless you are a citizen. Which illegals are not by definition.

2. Stopping the export of money earned by illegals is not the same as killing them. Stop being illogically dramatic to try to make your point.

3. They have no Constitutional rights because they are here illegally, not because they broke the law.
You always seem to get exercised about people not being as upset as you. Being upset about it does not mean you are right; not being upset does not make us wrong. Or mean.

Even laws pertaining to illegal immigrants needs to be Constitutional.

[jimnyc]

They have minimal rights, and Congress can make changes to take any of those rights away - as they should if one is a criminal, or refusing to be employed and pay taxes like everyone else. If not, Congress SHOULD intercept, and NO it wouldn't even be remotely unconstitutional.

-----

Rights, Privileges, and Duties of Aliens

Legal immigrants enjoy the opportunity to reside within the United States without having obtained U.S. citizenship. While they have no legal or constitutional rights to remain within the country, they may stay provided that the government renews their visas at the expiration of the previous visa. In return for the U.S. granting temporary residence, these aliens owe "temporary allegiance" to the United States. Temporary allegiance involves obeying all U.S. laws while within the U.S., implied consent to U.S. court jurisdiction for alleged violation of tort and commercial laws, and submission to the court system's power of subpoena. While aliens may face suit under tort or commercial laws, they also possess the right to sue.

.....

Congress has the preeminent power in terms of passing statutes that regulate immigration and alienage. Consequently, the United States Constitution enables Congress to delineate the rights, duties, and liabilities that accompany legal immigrant status. Congressional power in this realm, however, must comply with the qualification that any law resulting in disparate treatment between aliens and citizens must bear some relation to a legitimate goal impacting immigration law. When a law treats an alien differently from a U.S. citizen, courts treat the law as inherently suspect and apply strict scrutiny when considering the law's constitutionality.

Aliens who reside in the U.S. bear certain obligations that U.S. citizens also bear. These obligations include paying state and federal taxes and submitting to the draft lottery system in times of war. For situations in which an alien fails to abide by these obligations, the alien may retain counsel and assistance from the alien's embassy.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alien

[Perianne]

They should make a law that requires aliens to pay $1,000 per year to reside here. That would raise more than enough money to build a wall and to ship them all back home.

[jimnyc]

They should make a law that requires aliens to pay $1,000 per year to reside here. That would raise more than enough money to build a wall and to ship them all back home.

Or better - make them pay taxes on all of their wages. The government would probably take in more than a grand. And if one breaks the law, even a speeding ticket - they get detained and adios!

[jimnyc]

Think so?

Review the many thousands of arrests involving the wiring of ill-gotten money out of this country. Many are the drug dealers & terrorist supporters languishing in Club Fed right now over such laws.

Yup. Take any and ALL ill gotten money, every last cent. They already take money and belongings of US citizens involved in certain crimes, they should certainly do the same to illegals AND then deport them. If money is gained from illegal activities - confiscate the money, then sell the cars/houses and confiscate that money too. When done - adios and send them packing.

I would simply take any changes to congress regarding illegal immigration and such, have them authorize further confiscation of remittances. Easy peasy. Done.

Maybe if they do this then a lot of them won't want to be here to begin with. Or perhaps, they will want to come legally and not have to worry a bit at all about this stuff.

[jimnyc]

Another great way of handling things - banking.

Make it nearly impossible for anyone to send money back "home". Disable all ways of sending the money. Make it so that the only way possible is for them to gather up their cash and bring it home themselves.