Andrew C. McCarthy eviscerates Trump’s plan to make Mexico pay for the wall
What’s wrong with Trump’s plan to make Mexico pay for the wall?
Here are a few excerpts, but I suggest you read the whole thing:
Trump first brays that he “will build the wall” (which, incidentally, would have no bearing on visa overstays, who account for nearly half of the illegal-alien population)…
[But] Trump is actually proposing amnesty of the “touch-back” variety occasionally championed by open-borders advocates…
Trump boosters are apparently content to have their man issue Obama-esque executive decrees under the guise of this erstwhile bane of their existence ”” as opposed to, oh, I don’t know, maybe asking Congress to pass a law addressing remittances to Mexico. Perhaps Trump has opted against approaching lawmakers because his idea, even if we dubiously assume its legality, is pointless…
Section 326 of the Patriot Act ”” which expressly targets “international money laundering” and “terrorist financing” ”” empowers the Treasury Secretary to prescribe rules that financial institutions must follow in identifying people who open accounts and use them to move money. Trump figures all he needs to do is rewrite the relevant regulation. Our would-be chief executive’s memo explaining this to the Post features his signature attention to detail: It twice cites the regulation in question, but misidentifies it both times ”” it is actually 31 CFR 103.121, not 31 CFR 130.121. The latter provision does not exist in the Code of Federal Regulations…
Not only would Trump adopt Obama’s practice of unilaterally decreeing federal law; he would continue Obama’s habit of deploying government legal processes as a weapon against political foes. Brazenly, Trump’s memo crows that he does not intend his proposed regulation to be like, you know, a real regulation. It is instead meant to be a scare tactic [to intimidate Mexico into paying]…
…[A] large chunk of [the money sent to Mexico by people here] comes from legal Mexican aliens and American citizens of Mexican descent. They would have no trouble complying with Trump’s threatened regulation. Nor would illegal aliens be much deterred: There are many alternatives to wire transfer for remitting funds…
Mexico would continue to get its money. Trump’s regulation would succeed only in imposing heavy burdens on American financial institutions, which would pass the resulting costs on to American citizens. Meanwhile, by driving remittance practices underground, Trump’s regulation would deprive American law enforcement of a useful avenue for tracking money transfers made by the very criminal element that he routinely decries in speaking about illegal immigration.
What could possibly go wrong?
Trump aside, the problem I have with a “this can’t be done” philosophy is that it has been proven nothing but incorrect and limiting too many times in the past. If we lived by that philosophy we would have very few of the conveniences we enjoy in modern life, A microvwave? Can’t be done–can’t cook with radio waves! Automobiles? Can’t be done–they’ll never be as reliable as a horse? Mach speed? Can’t be done–you’ll disintegrate. The earth moves around the sun? Nonsense–anyone can clearly see that the opposite is true!
Again, I’m no mindless Trump supporter, but I am wise enough to recognize that almost anyone who thinks out of the box is initially branded crazy or heretical (e.g., Albert Einstein). To what extent this applies (or doesn’t) to Trump? I have no idea.
Furthermore, even though I have great respect for Andrew McCarthy, the D.C. pundits have not enjoyed much success with most of their predictions regarding his fate.
First, where there’s a will, there’s a way. It’s not important, whether Mexico be made to pay. It’s not important whether there’s a wall. What’s important is that our borders be under our control. Personally, I favor eliminating the incentives and going after the employers.
No benefits + no jobs = self-deportation.
Secondly, an argument can be made that it’s much too late for constitutionally valid means of reform. That, the left has thrown the constitution overboard and will never allow the right to restore constitutional governance.
It may be that the only alternative to civil war is enslavement.
T,
The inventions you mentioned were brought about by people who worked at them, tested them, and were willing to learn from their mistakes. Trump spouts something out of his mouth and a half hour later reinterprets that in a tweet. True discoverers are willing to know what they don’t know and set out to learn more. Trump thinks he knows everything. He can’t even hire good campaign people. Imagine who he would chooses as SOS.
Trump moves the terms of the debate. We are gong to build a wall. The only question is who pays for it.
This is outside the box thinking.
Expat,
I reject that argument. Who would have ever thought a bankrupted former haberdasher would ever make a good president, and yet Harry Truman is usually placed among the more (most?) successful presidents of the twentieth century.
Some people rise to the occasion, and to the office, in Becket-like fashion. Of course we can never accurately predict who will (Truman) and who will not (Obama).
The flaw in your stated approach is the belief that what we see of Trump on the campaign trail (the surface) is what we will get if he is elected president. Like Truman and Obama, we will never truly know this until after the fact.
Upon general observation, I find that the most successful businessmen/women follow the first part of an old axiom:
Expat,
One further thought.
You wrote: “The inventions you mentioned were brought about by people who worked at them, tested them, and were willing to learn from their mistakes.”
This is most definitely true. The limitation of a “this can’t be done” attitude keeps such a trial and error process from even beginning in the first place. From the get-go the paradigm is that any attempt will fail so why waste your time putting forth any effort to begin with? Move on to some other project that will succeed.
It’s not about the wall or immigration control. It is all about Trump gaining control of the Federal government. To Trump everything else is negotiable. When Trump learns that even the POTUS doesn’t have as much power as he wants things will get out of control.
Who would have ever thought a bankrupted former haberdasher would ever make a good president, and yet Harry Truman is usually placed among the more (most?) successful presidents of the twentieth century.
Trump didn’t just leave his haberdashery one day and decide to be president — he was a well-seasoned politician:
oops — make that “Truman didn’t just leave his haberdashery one day…”
“Trump didn’t just leave his haberdashery one day . . . .” [Ann]
I never said he did. Today, however,this would be broadcast by the opposition as a distinction that renders him ineligible to hold the presidency regardless of any other accomplishments in his life.
“He’s already failed once. Do you really want to give him a chance to fail again and bring you down with him?”
Funny, I didn’t even notice the typo but read it as you intended. A Freudian slip on both of our parts?
mf,
You hear it as out of the box thinking, I see it as flinging feces at the wall and hoping it sticks until 1237. IMO, DJT is way in over his hair, has no clue about the process, and is beginning to slowly realize he must go all out save the NY primary.
I will say goodbye for a while. We are going to a big family party where my eldest son and daughter inlaw will burn their mortgage having become free and clear onApril 1.
parker:
Have fun 🙂
Mexico is most unlikely to send a check to Washington.
INSTEAD
Mexico will end up using their police powers to stop the flood north.
The pressure upon Mexico will fade FAST once the flood of illegals ends.
And Mexico can end it faster than any wall can be built.
Understand that major players in Mexico City are currently benefiting from the Mexican invasion.
in economic terms, Mexico is a hostile power.
The elites there screw over their own citizens by the million — and pontificate to America.
That nation is totally screwed up — and needs to enter a 12 step program.
Having worked side by side with illegal Mexican aliens — I can assure you that Mexico City treats their citizens like trash.
The government is totally corrupt.
We’ll understand how corrupt when Hillary brings her corruption to Washington.
They said building a wall in Israel wouldn’t work. It did. McCarthy can bloviate, but he has no special knowledge on how to make things work. He is a lawyer who believes that all issues are settled by laws. Neo, interesting choice of words that an article written by a lawyer “eviscerated” an argument when really it is just a different opinion that no one can tell you has a basis in fact. And the visa overstay issue: different issue with a different solution.
Phil Dayton:
Trump is a real estate developer who does not know the law, but “hires the best.” Israel is not Mexico as in “different issue with different solution.” This country is supposed to function under the rule of laws, not the rule of men.
“This country is supposed to function under the rule of laws, not the rule of men.” [OM]
In an ideal world, yes! But has this country ever truly functioned that way? It is standard issue that the people in the position to making the laws always so in such a way as to benefit themselves. It was not recently that Mark Twain noted that “We have the best congress money can buy.”
Phil Dayton:
Did you actually READ McCarthy’s piece before you critiqued it? Because your criticism is essentially irrelevant to what the piece is actually about.
McCarthy does not say building a wall wouldn’t “work” in the way that Israel’s wall works—i.e. to keep illegal newcomers out. His entire article (except for one sentence, and I’ll get to that sentence in a moment) is about Trump’s plan to make Mexico PAY for the wall, and he gives many reasons why that will not work. In fact, the title of my post indicates that this is the subject matter: paying for the wall.
One of the ways in which McCarthy points out that Trump’s suggestion about Mexico paying for the wall is flawed is Trump’s lack of familiarity with the law. And yes, one of the big issues here is in fact a legal one—the way in which Trump suggests the Patriot Act, a law, can be used by the chief executive to expand that act in order to stop illegal immigrants from sending money to Mexico. Trump or Trump’s people not only are suggesting it can expanded in a way that almost certainly violates the law and even the Constitution, but they have cited the wrong section of the law, as well.
Israel has never suggested that Palestine or the Palestinians pay for its wall. That would be the proper analogy, not the wall itself and whether it has helped keep people out of Israel that Israel wants kept out (which it has, to a large extent). The logistical situation with the Israel wall vs. the much larger one between the US and Mexico make the two situations less-than-analogous, as well. But that’s a different point, not the one that McCarthy is making at all; he never criticizes a US wall in that sense (for the record, I happen to think a wall would be a good idea, but that there are major logistical problems that would be difficult although not impossible to surmount).
Lastly—the one point that McCarthy DOES make about actually building a wall here, as opposed to how it would or could be financed, is that it would not even address the very important issue of people overstaying visas, which is a huge part of the illegal immigrant problem we face. That is actually in agreement with your point that it is a separate issue from the wall. McCarthy makes it clear that it’s indeed a separate issue from a wall, but that it is very relevant to the issue of tackling illegal immigration as a whole. McCarthy also points out that Trump is suggesting letting a lot of people back in after he deports them, but this also is not about the wall itself or its effectiveness (or even who will pay for it), it’s about deportation and amnesty, a different but related topic.
As for the word “eviscerate” in terms of an argument, this blog is not a legal document, in case you haven’t noticed, and in my opinion McCarthy eviscerates Trump’s proposal about making Mexico pay for the wall.
Stones, arrows, and words may come my way; but a wall along our entire southern border is not needed to reduce the alien invasion by 95%. Stout walls at select locations will funnel aliens into areas where increased surveillance backed by boots on the ground can repeal the invasion. The problem is the laws that protect the invaders from immediate expulsion once they are detained.
From my POV invaders have no rights that allow for court hearings to determine their ‘status’. They are criminal invaders, without regard to age, that have zero rights. Detain them and then send them back across the border by the bus load.
T Says: I for one am fed up with Executive Orders and non-enforcement of laws that concern illegal immigration, and sanctuary cities and counties that in my area support agriculture and food processing interests, here less than 200 miles or so from the Canadian border.
I have no wish to live in an ideal world (in this life) or in a utopia in the making via some progressive mastermind’s scheme. So we are stuck with a flawed instrument (politics and politicians) to sort out the mess. There are rules to the game of politics in this country, and it is a contact “sport.”
Trump’s unserious proposals and promises do nothing to solve the problem IMO.
OM,
“Trump’s unserious proposals and promises do nothing to solve the problem IMO.”
IMO. My point exactly. You may be quite right; you may not be, but we will not know unless Trump is elected and only then after the fact.
I don’t mean this as an argument for electing him. I only point out that until such a time this is ALL opinion and conjecture.
T-says:
Andy McCarthy has more credibility regarding the law than Sir Donald and has published his critique. He isn’t pulling it out of an orifice unlike Sir Donald.
You may not agree with that. Sir Donald has a history of falsification, that is not an opinion. So to claim that he may be telling the truth this time or that his plan is too good to fail, this time, is not credible.
I am not purchasing an “ACME” border wall with my vote from Sir Donald, i.e., “ACME” supplier of all goods for Wylie coyote.
Neo– I think that it is Obvious that Mr. mcCarthy’s piece about the financing of the wall is just a straw argument against the wall itself–especially when his statement that the wall will not solve the visa problem is taken into account. I just don’t see in his piece a statement that he considers the wall a great idea but his only problem is with the financing. If the financing was really his problem all he would need to say is that he suggests financing it from some other source. The clear implication from his piece is that he dislikes Trump’s entire position on migration from Mexico–especially the wall.
Phil Dayton:
No, it’s not the least bit obvious. Au contraire.
Are you at all familiar with the work of McCarthy? Terrorism, particularly Islamist terrorism, is his specialty, and the bulk of his many many columns are on that topic, both its legal and religious aspects, both in this country and in Europe. He has also pounded very hard on the Hillary email controversy, and on Benghazi. Other interests of McCarthy’s include the Supreme Court, NSA surveillance issues, Obama’s overreach when he gave illegal immigrants amnesty, and last summer column after column on the Iran deal. I would say that, compared to most columnists on the right, McCarthy has had less to say about Donald Trump, although he certainly doesn’t support him and he has written a number of columns about him (McCarthy supports Cruz for the nomination).
When Trump announced his candidacy and for quite a few months afterward, McCarthy pretty much ignored Trump, thinking he would naturally fade in time as a candidate. But after that he has written some columns about him, and when he has criticized him, the main issues for McCarthy re Trump have been (1) his contributions to Democrats to buy influence (2) his inconsistencies (3) his rudeness and vulgarity (4) and his “touchback amnesty” (McCarthy is clearly very opposed to giving illegal immigrants amnesty). McCarthy has even written that if Trump were nominated he would probably vote for him if only because his SCOTUS appointments would be better than his opponent’s, and McCarthy has defended Trump’s comments that Muslims hate us (2 columns of McCarthy’s were devoted to that defense, this and this). He has also defended Trump’s comments about overthrowing Qaddafi. So he’s not just a kneejerk “everything Trump says is wrong” person.
McCarthy is a very prolific writer, but you will search long and hard to find any interest of his in the topic of Trump’s Mexican border wall. When Trump first was declared as a candidate, and the wall was a big big issue, McCarthy certainly could have written about Trump’s proposed wall then if McCarthy had opposed it, but he did not write on the topic. The only thing I could find that McCarthy has ever written about the wall was a very short and very sarcastic piece concerning the Pope’s speaking out against a border wall, and it is very clear from what McCarthy wrote that if anything he is in favor of a wall and believes the Pope was being highly hypocritical in condemning it.
And if McCarthy had wanted to say something against the wall in that recent piece about Trump (the column of McCarthy’s that is the topic of this post), McCarthy is not the least bit shy and he would write about the topic. Why would he have to write in some sort of hidden code, rather than directly? He doesn’t; he is perfectly capable of voicing opposition to the wall if he opposes it. He did not do so. In the column, McCarthy made it totally clear what he is actually saying, and it has to do with Trump’s proposal to make Mexico pay, and the flaws in that plan. There is no reason to write a whole column about one thing if he really meant another, and I have no idea why you would think McCarthy would need to do that or would want to do that.
And pointing out that a wall doesn’t solve all the illegal immigration problems, because many of them stem from visa overstays, has nothing to do with being pro or can a wall itself. It is merely pointing out that there is much more that would need doing in addition to a wall.
In short, you are not making a particle of sense.
“Andy McCarthy has more credibility regarding the law than Sir Donald and has published his critique.” [OM]
Yes, “Andy” McCarthy is a seasoned attorney for whom I have great respect. But . . . he is not running a competitive political campaign in hostile territory; apples and oranges.
It goes to my original point of addressing “out-of-the-box” thinking. McCarthy is an attorney and for him most problems seek solutions within a legal framework. Sometimes solutions beyond those limitations present themselves while still being legal. Look up Charitable Remaindered Trusts as an example. A legal walk through the woods creating a structure that most people (upon first blush) think is not legal.
Let me restate—I am NOT assuming that Trump is this wise or cagey; I am also not assuming that Trump has the ability to create a circle of advisors who are. I AM suggesting that such is a possibility and we can not know this until after the fact. Remember, Charlemagne, an illiterate man who kept pen and ink at his bedside in case writing came to him in the night, assembled a court of intellects which brought Europe out of the disorder left by the fall of Rome (and to which, BTW, we owe the appearance of our writing today).
T Says:
Boiled down, we can’t know the future. Think out of the box.
My response. Put credence in past behavior as a predictor for future behavior. Thoroughly assess the problem before picking a proposed solution, as short cuts and faulty assumptions lead to non-solutions. Use Occam’s Razor.
OM,
“Boiled down, we can’t know the future. Think out of the box. “
I would revise that slightly: “Boiled down, we can’t know the future. Allow for thinking out of the box.”
Sometimes thinking out of the box is genius; sometimes it’s just lunacy.
I have no criticism of your premise of using past behavior as a predictor. I do the same thing myself in my chosen career. Life, however, has a way of being like a differential equation; so many variables changing as to many different rates (IMO that’s why social science is more “social” than “science”).
I only ask that people allow for the possibility, I’m not saying “take it to the bank.”
As far as Trump goes, my idea is aimed specifically at people who, through sitting out the election, would put the oval office in the hands of Hillary Clinton. My take is that #NeverHillary is much more important than #NeverTrump. Of course, that is also an opinion.
OM,
One other interesting point.
I took your earlier “ACME” reference immediately being a big fan of the Road Runner cartoons. Note however, that the ACME products work in the cartoons exactly as intended. The rocket on Wile E. Coyote’s back operates as it is supposed to. It’s Wile E. who points himself to the cliff (or down the highway to smack into the radiator of an oncoming truck). The spring heaves the stone exactly as Wile E. intended; it’s Wile E.’s mistake to be standing in the wrong spot, etc..
So an ACME border wall would probably work work just fine. Like the coyote, we would probably build it in the wrong place (“That’s a joke, son! I say . . . that’s a joke!).
Hm, sounds like we were restricting remitttances to Cuba…which the Obama administration recently lifted. I also read we do something similar with remittances to Ethiopia.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article23700409.html
Economic pressure on Mexico would most certainly work. Without the flow of money to Mexico, the poor in Mexico will begin to really suffer the consequences of Mexico’s choices in government and business. Everything is about propping up the small amount of rich people in the country and using the U.S. as the relief valve.
T Says:
I often wonder if “ACME” is really McMaster-Carr under another name.
I admire Andrew McCarthy immensely, but he doesn’t seem to know much about either banking or tax law. Wire transfers are already covered by the Bank Secrecy Act, the Patriot Act, the Foreign Account Taxpayer Compliance Act, and others. The IRS has the power, for example, to impose 30% withholding on any payment made to a foreign bank which fails to cooperate with the IRS by furnishing it with sufficient information on US or potentially US customers.
Trump or his writers may have cited the wrong section of the wrong statute, but the Treasury Department already has ample statutory authority to require payors of all sorts, including banks, Western Union, check-cashing operators, credit card issuers, and informal money (“halwa”) transferors to withhold on and in some cases restrict remittances. You can take that to the bank.
Mr. McCarthy makes too much sense. I don’t think that’s allowed this election cycle.