How Mexico would indirectly fund improved border security with no change to US law or treaties

How does that even matter?

We can easily reduce that 12 million to a trickle by funding the wall that the frees up the courts to start catching up on the backlog if immigration cases and frees up then ICE Resources to remove an ever larger percentage of the remaining illegals year after year.

There is also no means to even estimate how many Visa Overstays remain in the country since departures are not tracked but those that do will also be able to be removed along with those who came across the southern border.

One thing that very much needs to be reformed is the ability to track where Visa Holders are staying while they are here and a system that monitors their exits and reports them to ICE needs to be created.

They have no plan. Trump prefers to negotiate without any bargaining chips. When he loses the battle, he’ll lie to his supporters, and most of them will believe him.

Start throwing the people who hire illegal immigrants in jail and seizing their property and not only will there be plenty of money for a wall, but the immigration policy would be taken care of real quick and the actual reason that they come here in the first place goes away.


Bingo shot

I saved some money on A so I spent it on B so I really never paid for it. Mexico did.

1 Like

The point is that your premise that this means Mexico would be paying for the wall is absurd.

1 Like

The OP is typical of the intellectual gymnastics Trunp supporters are doing to make the argument that Trump can deliver on a key election promise.

Though now they can blame the democrats while ignoring the fact that for two years the Republicans controlled it all and Trump could not negotiate with his own party.

Sure blame RINOS, blame the swamp, blame the globalists all you want but the fact is all we heard right up until recently was that Trump is a master class in negotiating yet nothing in his Presidency shows any evidence of this.


You realize that Trump didn’t even write “Art of the Deal” correct?


If that’s the argument you want to make, fine, but don’t paper over it by claiming this somehow indirectly makes Mexico pay for it.

1 Like

Lower total payments from the immigrants. How does less remittance money going from immigrants to their relatives in Mexico equal Mexico paying for the wall?

1 Like

You realize that Obama did not write “Dreams of My Father”.

Most books written by celebrities have ghost writers. What does that have to do with the question here?

Most books from celebrities are written by ghost writers.

But Dreams of my Father was actually wittten by Obama. He wasnt famous when he wrote it.

Already I don’t buy this “estimate”.

Yes, border security is only part of the solution.

I think that the most effective change would be increase penalties for employers who violate the law by employing immigrants. The current fine for the first violation is less than $2000 per employee, and there no requirement that employers use E-verify to check status. A change to the law is required to increase criminal penalties.

Civil suits may be one path under with no change to the laws. Legal employees have successfully sued employers using illegal workers to depress wages. Changes to the law may be required to make employers explicitly liable for damages from crimes committed by employers here illegally.

Throw them in jail and take their property.

OP, how can Mexico be paying for it when they’re not paying anything?

Still not going to get the wall.

*A remittance is a payment from a private individual to another private individual. Taxpayers don’t benefit one whit if these remittances are reduced, and may be harmed by it through other economic knock-on effects. In any event, reduced remittances don’t equate to any money flowing to the Treasury to offset taxpayers’ burdens for any wall that gets funded.

*Related to the first…there’s zero evidence the Heritage Foundation’s estimate of the “cost” of illegal immigration to the US to taxpayers. Other studies have been done that show illegal immigration is actually a net economic benefit to the United States

*There’s zero evidence a border wall will make a dent in immigration in any numbers that justify its cost…other lower cost options exist that can likely do the job better (indeed have been doing the job better as inflows of illegals to the US are at LOWS, not HIGHS). It is a sure thing that Trump’s desired wall will cost MORE, not less, than the estimates we’re being given, and cause all sorts of unplanned consequences (such as issues with getting the desired land, American citizens ending up on the “wrong side of the wall” do to geographic constraints as to where the wall can go, etc)

You guys insist on solving a problem that doesn’t exist to the degree you have been told to believe it does, sticking the taxpayers with the bill for an overpriced solution, and now spending your time coming up with convoluted stories to convincing yourself we’re not paying for it.

All because you don’t want to admit you voted for a con man who tickles your ears with fantasies you already believe.


You disparage the evidence presented in the OP and yet produce zero evidence to counter it.

The existing US border security stopped 500,000 illegal entries last year. That would not be possible if there were no physical barriers at the border. Improved security is going to reduce illegal entries.

Bam! There it is.