patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
757,023 comments in 77,874 posts by 11,065 registered users, 3 online now: errc, Fucking White Male, WorkInProgress

new post

Still think we don't need a wall?

By Quigley   2016 May 19, 11:39am   2 links   7,737 views   61 comments   watch (1)   quote      

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/05/18/cartel-members-kidnap-texas-man-for-ransom-take-him-to-mexico/

Texas — Mexican cartel members kidnapped an American citizen in this border city and crossed him into Mexico and then demanded ransom money from his family. The region is controlled by the Gulf Cartel and outsiders engaging in kidnapping for ransom in their territory does not occur. The Mexican neighborhood where the victim was held is also a stronghold for the Gulf Cartel and considered a major base for their cross-border operations into the Rio Grande Valley Sector of Texas.

« First     « Previous     Comments 22-61 of 61     Last »

22   tatupu70   2016 May 19, 5:49pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

curious2 says

Do you agree to building a wall if Mexico pays for it?

Mexico is already on record saying they won't pay for it, so the question is moot.

23   errc   2016 May 19, 6:02pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

The idea is stupid because it serves no purpose.

So we build a big ass wall along the border with Mexico. Mexico pays for it. What changes?

24   TwoScoopsMcGee   2016 May 19, 6:03pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

tatupu70 says

Mexico is already on record saying they won't pay for it, so the question is moot.

They'll lose an annual ~$50B Trade Surplus each and every year so as not to finance a $20B wall over years?

25   tatupu70   2016 May 19, 6:05pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

thunderlips11 says

They'll lose an annual ~$30B Trade Surplus so as not to finance a $20B wall over years?

Nope--what would happen is that they would still have a $30B trade surplus with no wall.

Or they'll have a $30B trade surplus and a wall that was paid for by the US taxpayer

26   TwoScoopsMcGee   2016 May 19, 6:05pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

(I adjusted the amounts, it's much higher)

tatupu70 says

Nope--what would happen is that they would still have a $30B trade surplus with no wall.

How? You build the wall, or we abrogate NAFTA.

PS, Presidents have unilaterally abrogated Treaties (though the Senate later agreed and claimed it had the privilege of approving it); it's a grey area of law. Constitution only requires the Senate to agree to Treaties the President makes, says nothing about the President abrogating them.

Both Lincoln and McKinley abrogated Treaties.

27   tatupu70   2016 May 19, 6:08pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

thunderlips11 says

How? You build the wall, or we abrogate NAFTA.

#1--Trump can't abrogate NAFTA unilaterally.
#2--Mexico will still have a trade surplus absent NAFTA

28   TwoScoopsMcGee   2016 May 19, 6:11pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

tatupu70 says

#1--Trump can't abrogate NAFTA unilaterally.

Sure Can.

Both Lincoln and McKinley abrogated Treaties.

Examples of treaty terminations in which the President acted alone are much disputed with respect both to facts and to the underlying legal circumstances.361 Apparently, President Lincoln was the first to give notice of termination in the absence of prior congressional authorization or direction, and Congress shortly thereafter by joint resolution ratified his action.362 The first such action by the President, with no such subsequent congressional action, appears to be that of President McKinley in 1899, in terminating an 1850 treaty with Switzerland, but the action may be explainable as the treaty being inconsistent with a subsequently enacted law.363 Other such renunciations by the President acting on his own have been similarly explained, and similarly the explanations have been controverted. While the Department of State, in setting forth legal justification for President Carter’s notice of termination of the treaty with Taiwan, cited many examples of the President acting alone, many of these are ambiguous and may be explained away by, i.e., conflicts with later statutes, changed circumstances, or the like.364


https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag19_user.html

With NAFTA as unpopular as it is, it will be very difficult for the Senate to reject an abrogation, not including the Constitutional Authority battle they very well might not win. The Constitution only expressly allows the Senate to approve Treaties the President makes. Otherwise it invests the President with near-total foreign policy powers.

tatupu70 says

#2--Mexico will still have a trade surplus absent NAFTA

NAFTA eliminates almost all tariffs. Without NAFTA, there is no barrier to tariffs on Mexico.

29   tatupu70   2016 May 19, 6:14pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

thunderlips11 says

Sure Can

Not really. You go on to say that he will need Senate support.

thunderlips11 says

NAFTA eliminates almost all tariffs. Without NAFTA, there is no barrier to tariffs on Mexico.

Yes. So, you then have to establish tariffs. But even after you have done that, you won't end the Mexican surplus--at best you will narrow it a bit.

30   TwoScoopsMcGee   2016 May 19, 6:18pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

tatupu70 says

Not really. You go on to say that he will need Senate support.

Nope. No express consent by the Senate required in the Constitution to abrogate treaties, only to approve them when they're made. Grey Area heavily weighted towards presidential foreign policy powers.

tatupu70 says

Yes. So, you then have to establish tariffs. But even after you have done that, you won't end the Mexican surplus--at best you will narrow it a bit.

I think a 35% tariff will do just great. If NAFTA is abrogated, I wonder if Tariffs return to what they were before.

Good luck with Congress trying to fight Trump on keeping NAFTA and free trade with Mexico - totally unpopular policy. Be great if he were to do this around Summer 2018, a few months before the off-year elections, to make all the neoliberal Clintonistas and country club Republicans explain their militant re-instatement of NAFTA to their voters.

Another example: Carter abrogates the Taiwan Treaty:

No such ambiguity accompanied President Carter’s action on the Taiwan treaty,365 and a somewhat lengthy Senate debate was provoked. In the end, the Senate on a preliminary vote approved a “sense of the Senate” resolution claiming for itself a consenting role in the termination of treaties, but no final vote was ever taken and the Senate thus did not place itself in conflict with the President.366 However, several Members of Congress went to court to contest the termination, apparently the first time a judicial resolu[p.491]tion of the question had been sought. A divided Court of Appeals, on the merits, held that presidential action was sufficient by itself to terminate treaties, but the Supreme Court, no majority agreeing on a common ground, vacated that decision and instructed the trial court to dismiss the suit.367 While no opinion of the Court bars future litigation, it appears that the political question doctrine or some other rule of judicial restraint will leave such disputes to the contending forces of the political branches.368

https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag19_user.html

The Senate never voted to approve Carter's abrogation. Appeals Court narrowly in favor of Carter, SCOTUS vacated the whole thing, and the unilateral abrogation stood.

31   Dan8267   2016 May 19, 6:29pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Quigley says

Mexican cartel members kidnapped an American citizen in this border city and crossed him into Mexico and then demanded ransom money from his family.

By that logic, we need to immediately ban all cars. They kill way more people than are taken for ransom to Mexico by like many orders of magnitude.

On costs alone, you are proposing spending billions of dollars per kidnapped American. When do we get that level of funding for our personal safety? And couldn't we spend it better saving tens of thousands of American lives who are lost each winter as the homeless die of hypothermia?

32   Dan8267   2016 May 19, 6:31pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

If you want a wall, you pay for it. Don't tax me for it. I don't want it that bad.

Let the free market decide if there should be a wall. Let private citizens fund private enterprise to build it with their private funds. A publicly funded wall is nothing less than massive socialism.

33   zzyzzx   2016 May 19, 6:35pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

errc says

I work too damn hard to have my tax dollars wasted on something so stupid

Mexicans will pay for it. They will also benefit greatly when the flow of drugs into the US from Mexico is stopped and the cartels in Mexico lose their source of income.

34   zzyzzx   2016 May 19, 6:35pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

zzyzzx says

Let private citizens fund private enterprise to build it with their private funds. A publicly funded wall is nothing less than massive socialism.

It can be funded from remittances going to Mexico or a tariff on Mexican goods entering the US.

35   curious2   2016 May 19, 6:49pm     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

zzyzzx says

Mexicans will pay for it. They will also benefit greatly when the flow of drugs into the US from Mexico is stopped and the cartels in Mexico lose their source of income.

I keep seeing reports of tunnels, which a wall might not stop, but a cheaper and more effective way to stop the cartels would be to end the drug "war". We've been arming at least two supposedly opposite sides of that war, between the Mérida Initiative and Fast&Furious, so the body count south of the border is essentially made in USA.

36   tatupu70   2016 May 19, 6:51pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

The funny thing is that if Trump or anyone here wanted to really hinder illegal immigration, they could do it for a LOT less than $20B and without a wall.

Simply enforce the laws already on the books against companies and executives hiring illegals. If Mexicans know that it will be impossible to get a job in the US, they won't come here.

You don't see Trump advocating for that, however. Because it doesn't have the same effect on the right wing crazies as building a 10 foot wall does...

37   HydroCabron   2016 May 19, 6:54pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

tatupu70 says

The funny thing is that if Trump or anyone here wanted to really hinder illegal immigration, they could do it for a LOT less than $20B and without a wall.

It's much simpler to explain all this if you suppose that Trump is lying.

38   Tenpoundbass   2016 May 19, 7:11pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

We could also tax Taco Bell to help pay for it.

39   Dan8267   2016 May 19, 7:22pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

curious2 says

I keep seeing reports of tunnels, which a wall might not stop,

Most of the "illegal immigrants" arrived on airplanes and then just didn't leave when their visas expired. Airplanes fly at 36,000 feet. Unless you build a wall over 40,000 feet tall, you aren't going to stop all those American Airlines and Delta flights carrying Mexicans into the United States.

Building such a wall is not technologically possible, would fuck up climate if built, and would cost about several thousand times the entire GDP of the United States. The wall is a just plain stupid idea.

40   FortWayne   2016 May 19, 7:54pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (5)   quote    

I still think we should just send in our military and take over Mexico. Annex it as 51st state to the union.

Few month of martial law and suspended human rights and we can clear up all the drug and gangs pretty fast.

41   BlueSardine   2016 May 19, 9:36pm     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

cheaper to just declare the first 20 miles inside the us border a military test missile range, then flood the area with cheap drones programmed to shoot on site anything that moves...then turn the whole fucker over to skynet for logistics...

42   Ceffer   2016 May 20, 12:16am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

If we used illegal aliens to build the wall, it would be a lot cheaper.

43   Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses   2016 May 20, 12:38am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

thunderlips11 says

How? You build the wall, or we abrogate NAFTA.

you and precisely zero economists think this is a good idea. Trade wars hurt both countries, so as is par for the course for trump supporters and most posters on here, you are either real fucking stupid, or blinded by hubris and bigotry. No other option. FortWayne says

still think we should just send in our military and take over Mexico. Annex it as 51st state to the union.

Few month of martial law and suspended human rights and we can clear up all the drug and gangs pretty fast.

fortwhine, you don't get to start a sentence with "I think" ever. You've never thought in your life. But, just because I'm feeling generous, I'll actually respond to you, an intellectual gift to an inferior, if you will: How has nation building been working out for the USA in Iraq? Afghanistan? SO, you really think taking on another is a good idea?

AND if we made mexico the 51st state, then all 150 millions would become AMERICANS with free right to travel anywhere else in the US they chose, which seems to run counter to the normal racist sentiment on here, that you guys want to send Mexicans out of here.

44   errc   2016 May 20, 5:30am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Mexicans will pay for it. They will also benefit greatly when the flow of drugs into the US from Mexico is stopped and the cartels in Mexico lose their source of income.

------------

The wall will do nothing to stop the flow of drugs. Its not like theyre walking drugs across the open border now. They grow pot here in the states, and they bring hard drugs in small amounts with mules through the normal border crossings

45   TwoScoopsMcGee   2016 May 20, 1:21pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

you and precisely zero economists think this is a good idea.

Are those the 99% of economists that totally failed to predict the 2008 Great Recession, the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, and indeed were calling for blue skies and endless growth in the days before hand? The ones who claimed NAFTA and MFN with China would result in countless High Tech Jobs of the Future and a Billion New Customers for American Manufacturers making things in America with American Employees?

Most Economists to me are just "Capitalist Studies" pracitioners the way Feminists have "Gender Studies". Their job is to be the Court Astrologers of the One Percent's Temple.

If the predictive power of a theory is it's best strength, then modern Economics is on par with Alchemy. Fulminate and Calicify the Aqua Regia in a solution of Camphor and Zinc.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

Trade wars hurt both countries

Total Trade Appeasement has been great for China and Japan. Huge tariffs on us, while we have low tariffs on them, and it never changes, they never reciprocate, because the Entrail Readers in Economics insist reciprocity would be counter-productive. Not doing jack shit and taking it in the Ass isn't working, either.

46   tatupu70   2016 May 20, 1:26pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

thunderlips11 says

Total Trade Appeasement has been great for China and Japan

And the 1% that owns all the multinational corporations.

"Retraining" workers sounds great until you realize there are no jobs to "retrain" into...

The most important economic statistics that we should be concerned with are unemployment and real wages/real wage growth. An economy with low unemployment and wage growth will be fine even if there is some inflation. We need jobs a lot more than we need lower priced goods.

47   TwoScoopsMcGee   2016 May 20, 1:27pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

A wall is a barrier, an obstacle, not a foolproof mechanism. It's a lot easier just to drive 4x4s loaded with coke and dope over the border, than it is to excavate a massive tunnel system. The more effort drug dealers and people smugglers have to expend on crossing the border, the less of it there will be.

Also, we need jobs like crazy for college grads in this country, so adding 10,000 border people isn't bad. Compared to other countries, including EU members, our border staffing is pitifully small.

Finally, we need more centralization of police and like every other country in the world including France, Japan and Germany, empower police to check on and detain those with overstayed visas. And tie Driver's License expirations to Visa expirations. I mean, duh, right?

Even a crappy chain link is working well for the Hungarians.

48   errc   2016 May 20, 1:30pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

The more effort drug dealers and people smugglers have to expend on crossing the border, the less of it there will be.

----------

Are you sure about this? Sounds like you aren't addressing the demand, mainly looking to try and hinder the supply. Which tends to make things more expensive and costly. If it pays better, people will stop doing it?

49   TwoScoopsMcGee   2016 May 20, 1:33pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

errc says

Are you sure about this? Sounds like you aren't addressing the demand, mainly looking to try and hinder the supply. Which tends to make things more expensive and costly. If it pays better, people will stop doing it?

Yup, but while a blockade causes demand pricing to skyrocket, it does require more effort on the part of the suppliers, and the blockade does stop a lot of the supply.

50   Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses   2016 May 20, 2:14pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

thunderlips11 says

A wall is a barrier, an obstacle, not a foolproof mechanism. It's a lot easier just to drive 4x4s loaded with coke and dope over the border, than it is to excavate a massive tunnel system. The more effort drug dealers and people smugglers have to expend on crossing the border, the less of it there will be.

I actually was working for a defense contractor when the "war on drugs" began. We modeled and ran analysis of how much effect doing everything possible would have on the price of various drugs in the USA.

Marijuana: pretty good effect. you have to drive a truck full, or at least a trunk full to make enough profit to have a viable business. enhanced searching of borders, stopping illegal truck crossings, and searching the hell out of northern california grow areas could make a difference, perhaps doubling the street price of pot.

Cocaine and heroin? no chance in hell. A few cubic inches of pure product in either case make so much money, that there is simply no way in hell to ever make even a small dent in the smuggling trade. Given that hard work in most of mexico or south america makes a person a few hundred dollars a month, and cartels can afford to pay people thousands of dollars to take one flight, with half a pound of product hidden somewhere, you have infinite people willing to carry, and even if only 1 out of 10 made it to the US, which is a laughable suggestion, you could still easily get as much as needed here to make hundreds of millions of dollars.
You might want to drive down and cross/sit for hours at the border, see how many people and vehicles cross. There is no way possible to search it all. Not to mention drones flying over border fences, etc, etc. etc.

Our most optimistic data showed that, throwing virtually infinite resources at it, you might, as in probably not, raise the street price by 10%.

Meth is made in the good old USA, so good luck with that!

Now here we are, 25 years later, and our initial report couldn't have been proven more true. Of course, just like on this forum, the phd scientists and mathematicians were ignored, and off to war on drugs we went!

51   bob2356   2016 May 20, 9:45pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

A good article in today's NYTimes about this very subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/politics/donald-trump-immigration.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0 showing what the reality is for building a wall. Of course there is the problem of the NYTimes being written on a 6th grade reading level which means the trump and wall supporters will find it far beyond their intellectual capacity and reading ability, gaining no knowledge or insight from their attempts to comprehend anything not written on a fox news level.

52   bob2356   2016 May 20, 9:52pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

thunderlips11 says

It's impossible to build a wall along the flat semi-arid plains flanking the Rio Grande - have you seen the terrain? And it would take such advanced technology.

It's not like the Great Wall is almost double the length of the entire US-Mexican border - of actual wall, not just defensive positions and fortified places.

It's not like the great wall prevented centuries of invaders from going through the great wall like shit through a goose. Trumps great wall won't fare any better.

53   TwoScoopsMcGee   2016 May 21, 9:50am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

bob2356 says

It's not like the great wall prevented centuries of invaders from going through the great wall like shit through a goose. Trumps great wall won't fare any better.

As I said, it won't be 100% effective. The Great Wall's primary function was to help keep out small opportunistic raiding bands, and delay larger forces for a while until the Chinese could bring up their own military. And often, on the way out, loaded down with booty trying to get it move it over the wall, the Mongols would be caught by the Chinese.

The "Wall isn't 100% effective so don't bother" is a fallacy of the excluded middle.

$20B one time is nothing in a $4T/year budget, especially when we've paid for various wars and interventions without a blink.

54   PCGyver   2016 May 21, 10:58am     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

errc says

The idea is stupid because it serves no purpose.

So we build a big ass wall along the border with Mexico. Mexico pays for it. What changes?

Nothing. You can still sail around it dig underneath it or simple break through it.

And why would anybody remit if US government is going to take it. Wouldn't they just find another way around that?

55   TwoScoopsMcGee   2016 May 21, 11:35am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Nothing. You can still sail around it dig underneath it or simple break through it.

Coast Guard has radar, digging is expensive and time consuming. Breaking through would be difficult on a monitored wall. Again, the more difficult you make it to enter, the more resources the people and drug smugglers have to expend to get around it.

PCGyver says

And why would anybody remit if US government is going to take it. Wouldn't they just find another way around that?

Taxing Remittances are a major source of income for... Mexico. Taxing it is of the top three sources of income for that country. Also, remittances are Mexicans making money in the US, but not spending it in the US economy.
http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-02-02/mexico-remittances-nearly-248b-in-2015-topping-oil-income

Mexican and US Elites profit from outsourcing, both by labor arbitrage on the US side, enriching the 1% at the expense of the millions of working poor, and the Mexican 1%ers by redistributing remittances via taxation spent on themselves via Mexican government contracts. Additionally Mexican and US finance companies controlled by Mexican and US Elites profit from remittance fees.

56   errc   2016 May 21, 11:58am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Yup, but while a blockade causes demand pricing to skyrocket, it does require more effort on the part of the suppliers, and the blockade does stop a lot of the supply.

---------------

You usually seem well versed on topics you post about, but you have this one wrong wrt drugs.

How much marijuana do you think is being imported (from Mexico) to the states at this point?
Is that even a problem worth solving?

On white powdery, more dangerous drugs, you are also incorrect. A wall along the Mexican border has ZERO chance at slowing their flow. They aren't being imported by illegals at the unwalled border, anyways. As someone else pointed out, individuals bring "small" amounts in through the border checkpoints now, along with infinite other ways for these drugs to enter the country

57   bob2356   2016 May 22, 10:04pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Ironman says

What happened, did your subscriptions to Mother Jones, ThinkProgress and Salon expire?

Sorry you are confused, a permanent condition, about other people's reading habits, but I don't even know what 2 of the 3 are and have never even read a single issue of any of them. Unlike you I actually graduated 6th grade and am not limited to publications that only use words with 2 syllables or less.

Is being a loser something people like you have to train for or does it come naturally? I always wanted to know and while I have the worlds foremost expert on the subject available I thought I would ask.

58   bob2356   2016 May 22, 10:11pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

thunderlips11 says

$20B one time is nothing in a $4T/year budget, especially when we've paid for various wars and interventions without a blink.

$20B isn't even the starting bid. Anyone that believes that number is a fool. Again, why spend dime 1? Start enforcing the laws against employers until there a no jobs for illegals, they will leave. Dope isn't coming across the border in 4x4's, it's coming through border checkpoints in tractor trailers. A wall will have zero effect on drug trafficking. You've got your head stuck up the wrong end of the camel.

59   BlueSardine   2016 May 23, 5:58am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

I count 3, 3, 2. thus proving 6th grade literacy has gone to hell ever since the teachers unionized...

bob2356 says

Ironman says

What happened, did your subscriptions to Mother Jones, ThinkProgress and Salon expire?

Sorry you are confused, a permanent condition, about other people's reading habits, but I don't even know what 2 of the 3 are and have never even read a single issue of any of them. Unlike you I actually graduated 6th grade and am not limited to publications that only use words with 2 syllables or less.

60   tatupu70   2016 May 23, 6:06am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Xanthidae says

I count 3, 3, 2. thus proving 6th grade literacy has gone to hell ever since the teachers unionized...

fyi--Mother Jones is two words.

61   bob2356   2016 May 23, 12:50pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

tatupu70 says

Xanthidae says

I count 3, 3, 2. thus proving 6th grade literacy has gone to hell ever since the teachers unionized...

fyi--Mother Jones is two words.

Apparently it has gone really to hell. The man with crabs didn't even have to use the fingers on the other hand and still got it wrong.

« First     « Previous     Comments 22-61 of 61     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home