Posted on 02/10/2016 5:54:55 AM PST by rktman
You are confusing the Supreme Court not missing a ruling to your liking with the orders of the Supreme Court being ignored. If the Court strikes down something like a fee that Trump pulled out ofbhis sohincter, without appropriate legislation, the tax/fee won't be collected.
I'm a conservative lawyer who has argued a lot of conservative positions in court, including the Supreme Court, and your view that decisions are habitually ignored, or that Trump could simply ignore them, doesn't work.
Just try thinking about this on a very practical, nuts and bolts level. Let's say he makes up this 40% tax on remittances to Mexico. How is that actually collected? And what happens when (not if) it gets struck down by courts? Who will physically collect that money from those.millions of Mexican illegals?
Whether or not you personally respect the Court or any of its decisions isn't relevant. The reality is that the people who would have to execute that collection will respect those orders, and the money will not be collected.
Continue living in denial if you want. I'm just telling you the way things actually work in the real world, not in your fantasy Trumpist revolutionary world.
Gaffer wrote: Spoken like a true capitalist. I would, however, require that you also pay a destination tax as well. Perhaps an end-destination certification with prison term penalties?
In that case, my first move would be to structure the Canadian intermediary as an agent for the recipient, not the sender. Want to send money to your mother in Mexico? Have her open herself an account with MexiCan(tm), and send money to her account. That way, for the sender's purposes, the "end destination" is Canada (or the Caymans, or whatever other low-regulation jurisdiction you choose to place the intermediary). What the recipient chooses to do with that money once it's in Canada is their business.
Point is, whatever structure you use to set up a country-specific remittance tax, people will find a way to avoid the tax, because there will always be a way to make money by helping people to avoid it.
Elimination of employment opportunity and .gov welfare benefits will start it rolling again.
My point is that national will can overcome a lot. It isn’t worth arguing about really
I think you don’t understand I don’t care what you think. Okay. You win the Internet. Feel better now?
What will the cost be of processing them after they touchback and are readmitted?
My question as well. It's all a very expensive futile gesture unless sending them home means they go to the back of the line.
I absolutely agree with that.
I try to make this point to my students.
1. ‘A’ oughta be illegal. Law ‘Anti-A’ gets passed.
2. I’ll just do ‘B’ to get around law ‘Anti-A’.
1. Then I’ll make that activity illegal. Law ‘Anti-B’ gets passed.
2. Then I’ll do ‘C’ to get around law ‘Anti-B’.
1. Then I’ll make that activity illegal. Law ‘Anti-C’ gets passed.
{repeat}
Eventually, many, many innocent people get swept up in all the various anti-whatever laws; the government gets stronger and controls more of our lives; and the original activity ‘A’ still goes on (potentially at a lower rate).
Exactly. And, the only people who benefit from the whole cycle are (a) the people in government (who now have more and more power), and (b) the lawyers who are paid handsomely to figure out 'B,' 'C' and other loopholes.
I remember the “dead zone” in Berlin.
I am willing to see if Trump can get the wall built—if Mexico will not pay for it—charge them tariffs. Trump has too much invested in this wall to not do it. It will happen even if he must build it himelf.
Trump doesn’t need to ask permission from congress to enforce an immigration policy that’s already in place. He just needs them to not obstruct him. Would any Republican congressman or senator with a hope of getting reelected oppose him?
Trump doesn’t need to ask permission to build a wall on the southern border that’s already been voted on and approved by congress except to ask congress to appropriate the money for it. Would any Republican congressman or senator with a hope of getting reelected deny him the funding?
He’s promised to get rid of illegals and he can do it under laws already in place. All he has to do is insist on enforcement of e-verify and harshly punish businesses that employ illegals. Watch them leave on their own when they can’t get jobs or work under the table.
Here’s where he saves the states despite their protestations. All he has to do is tell the states they’ll receive no welfare or medicaid funding until they weed their enrollments of illegal immigrants, including their dependents. The choice is protecting illegals in violation of existing federal immigration laws, or money. What choice will they make? Will they say NO to Uncle Sugar?
By the same token, if he tells the sanctuary cities that they’ll receive no more federal funding until they start complying with existing immigration laws, what will the cities do? Choose sanctuary policy or federal money? See above.
I saw on Drudge recently that the number of sanctuary cities now number more than 300.
Many illegals run afoul of the law. When someone has a police contact via arrest and they can’t prove legal resident status, you deport them, or hold them for trial then decide whether to imprison or deport them. Do you think the police and/or courts will hesitate to get rid of a problem the easiest way possible, knowing their federal funding will be cut off if they don’t enforce existing federal immigration laws? Again, not one additional law is needed to do this.
How many people have been “rounded up” and deported so far? None. They’re leaving on their own because it will no longer be easy to stay. How much money has Trump saved the American taxpayer just by implementing what I’ve outlined above?
We’ll need that big beautiful door on that big beautiful wall just to handle all the traffic headed SOUTH and he hasn’t had to do a thing except insist that EXISTING federal immigration laws be enforced.
No tyranny or violations of the constitution required. All we’ve lacked so far is a president with the desire or balls to enforce the law.
Sure, the democrats and Leftists will holler and stamp their feet, but they won’t pay out of their own pockets to protect their interest groups, aka future democrat voters.
As an added bonus, they can even claim that it’s not their fault, a position all politicians are quite comfortable with.
Trump 2016!
The wall is one of the attractive things Trump has talked about, but of course he’s falsely bragging about ‘no one else even mentioned it’.
Regardless of how we get the damn secured border the better. Who pays for it is of less concern. Its highly unlikely Mexico will be the payer primarily for some of the reasons I outlined previously.
The best way to have 12 million ‘self-expell’ is to cut their free welfare, free medical and fine to holy hell out of any employer who hires anyone without a green card or a citizen. THEN, Mexico or Latin America home will look more inviting.
Only you and me can keep Ford from building more in Mexico, by not buying what they make down there.
It ain’t just Ford.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.