What's going to happen when he wins and can't build a wall?
Will Trumpfags forget about it like liberals did with Gitmo?
>>76561920
He won't win. And I'll be here everyday to remind you losers.
EVERY FUCKING DAY FAGGOTS. GET READY.
>>76561920
What exactly makes you think he won't?
>>76563126
you're still canadian
>>76561920
Depends on why he couldn't. You need to elaborate, anon.
>>76563126
After we annex Mexico, we'll annex Canada . Don't worry Russia's going to get Europe
>>76561920
How dare you compare liberals to us ? Fuck you
>>76563126
not like you will have a home when november comes around
http://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/interactive-map
click active fires
>>76561920
Nobody believes you, Lyan' Rex.
>>76563127
>>76563377
The judicial system will make it extremely difficult to build a wall. Most of Congress does not support it. And getting Mexico to pay for it would be practically impossible; they've already said they're not going to.
Trump can't just make a wall appear like magic; he'd have to fight tooth and nail to get it done, I just don't believe he has the political clout to get it done.
>can't build a wall?
It's already funded.
Obama just won't let border patrol do their jobs.
Tariffs implemented and remittance payments will make Mexico beg us to pay for the wall.
Remember to hide and sage shill threads everyone.
>>76563710
Source?
And everyone's gotta make a dollar one way or another, I'm no shill but I could see the appeal.
I'm legitimately interested in how this wall could be built
>>76563632
The funding thing isn't an issue, as has been explained a million times for months on end. Mexico has no choice in the matter.
Your other points are far more sound, and what I was expecting. I imagine it would result in a metric fuckton of "the government's against us, guys, they know you want it, but they don't care about you" every single day. He'd probably try to make it a huge deal when elections come around.
Beyond that, who knows. It could any number of ways.
>>76564105
>The funding thing isn't an issue, as has been explained a million times for months on end. Mexico has no choice in the matter.
>The explanation generally comes down to "What are they gonna do about it? We'll blow them up if they don't"
>This is what Trumpfags actually believe.
>>76563843
Border patrol budget is already in the budget it just has not been distributed how it should. That can be used for anything from employing agents to build a wall. Grant, the fund won't be enough to fund the wall, but if the agents start doing their jobs, that would help immensely.
Obama has told ICE to do catch and release.
They make a shit load of money from us in trade deals and remittance payments back to Mexico. Quit giving them trade breaks and stop all payments back to Mexico, a lot which are from illegals.
>>76564370
>I can't be bothered to learn the basic information about a subject before making a fool of myself
>this is what I actually am
>>76561920
probably. we're used to failure.
Might pull a weedman and say, i wanna build a wall but they wont let me.
All Trump really has to do is tell the Army Corps of Engineers to get started.
He could order the DOD to earmark $1 billion per year for it (which frankly is excessive) and it would be < 1% of their budget.
The real question is why no other president bothered to do even this little bit. It would be done by now if Obama had started it, worthless shitstack that he is.
>>76564370
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/pay-for-the-wall
>>76564481
Didn't Trump say he'd make Mexico pay for the wall?
>>76563126
Im gonna get my yard rake and make sure that doesnt happen faggot
>>76564506
I know more about trade deals and BITs than you do, anon.
Go read some NAFTA. Enjoy the massive mindfuck when you get to the part about what happens if a party nation goes against the deal. You might also need to read some case law to understand what it means, but maybe one day you'll understand why taxing remittances and raising tariffs will only end with horrible pain for American Nationals.
Your cognitive dissonance was fun to watch, though. We signed our own death warrant in 93. Longer than that ago did we make our bed, however. There's a few ways out, but building a wall and taxing/tariffing/blocking remittances isn't the way.
>>76564669
>They make a shit load of money from us in trade deals and remittance payments back to Mexico.
Stop those, and they'll beg us to pay the relatively small amount for the wall.
It's like "hey mexico, give us $100 or we'll cut off our $5000 annual aid"
>>76564370
Why do you post at all, juan? Don't worry, they have internet back in Mexico.
>>76564669
There are other ways for Mexico to pay for something besides demanding a check.
we know he can't build a wall. But at least he will beef up border security and deport criminal illegal aliens.
>>76564871
>tryhard defenstration
>I know stuff!
>heh, your cognitive dissonance, right? I'm going to pretend we know each other
At least you're not pretending the option is "blow people up" now.
>>76563126
How's your Ramadan?
>>76564638
I've read it anon. It's pure bullshit. But beyond that, even if all of that were true, it's so rosy it's not even funny.
What if, after all of that, they say no? They decide to go down with their ship with a big "Fuck you" to america instead of what is essentially going down with their ship anyway?
What if, by the time they decide to put the money in, their government becomes inoperable. They end up with revolutions and the like?
What if they take us to international court over human rights abuses? Taking that much money out of the Mexican economy would result in mass starvation. The only entity ever able to pull off shit like that is the IMF, and just barely. That's not holding out for much longer either.
These are all much more probably than Mexico paying for a wall along it's norther border.
>>76565319
>they say no
>this is an option when I pretend that Mexico writing us a check is how this would play out
>human rights abuses
>what if criminals sue us for seizing the products of their illegal enterprise?
>WHAT IF, GUYS?!?
>>76565319
>Taking that much money out of the Mexican economy would result in mass starvation.
Their inept government is not my problem.
>>76565148
That's not a refutation anon.
Here, I'll give you the short and long of it.
If we "damage" mexican companies or peoples by requiring remittances to be taxed, by requiring taxes, by going against a signed trade deal, the Mexican government can take us to international court to receive repairations for those damages. We'd loose. The case law is all there on the books. Go read about Belgium and glue.
Now, here's where the trumpfag answer is "What are they going to do about it? Come and take it. We'll blow them up!"
That money can be taken from U.S. nationals, not just U.S. government property.
Every business or factory or account in Mexico owned by U.S. nationals becomes open season for nationalization and redistribution. We'd be paying for those remittances and tariffs.
>>76565558
It is anon. Welcome to the international law that WE set up to fuck the rest of the world since the 1970s out of fear of commies and stagflation.
We built this boat. We're gonna go down with it if we fuck this up. And Trump is going to fuck this up. Hillary's answer is "there is no problem", but at least the ship won't sink any faster.
How butthurt is this board gonna be when Shillary becomes the next president of the US of A?
>>76565636
So they'd have good reason to come back to the US
>>76565763
Literally not my problem if Mexicans are starving. If you want to suggest that there would be a tidal wave of shitskins crashing the border deforesting the countryside in search of food, we just issue hunting licenses.
>>76564942
>>76564885
I know they have no choice, but I was asking because you said the US could use border patrol funds to build it
>>76565951
>So they'd have good reason to come back to the US
It'd be way too late for that. All it takes is one litigatory thump from the Mexican government and they can freeze all accounts of all U.S. Nationals in Mexico and disallow any transfer of any money or property back to the U.S.
Doing so when there is a lawsuit going on is what's known as a Fraudulent transfer.
So enjoy day 3 of that plan.
And as far as Mexicans starving being the U.S. government's problem. There was only two events close to something like this. When the IMF required Argentina to pay back it's debts, which caused starving on the streets, and when the German government enforced Austerity measures on Greece.
The IMF would never have gotten away with the shit they pulled today. Germany had to make sure there were tons of safety nets in place to make sure that not a single human life was lost due to starvation more than usual.
Cost to build a wall $10 billion
Cost savings of building a wall ($510 billion) - fewer illegals sucking up welfare, running up hospital bills, causing crime, burdening the social services and infrastructure.
>>76565636
>not a refutation
Are we doing refutations? It seems you started out with some bullshit you knew wasn't true ("we'll blow them up!"), got mad enough to get tripped up and admit you knew this wasn't even an issue ("taxing remittances isn't the way!") amidst weird claims of psychic powers ("cognitive dissonance!"...not displayed in the thread) and superior knowledge (which you should really show, not tell.
>if we do this thing, we'll be sued
It's already being done, anon. Why has your vast knowledge failed you?
Did you not know that remittances to Mexico are already suffering from deductions in an attempt to offset the costs involved with illegal aliens?
>the Trumpfag answer
Yet you're the only one who's said this, anon. You brought it up.
Not your best day, I would imagine.
>>76565951
>So they'd have good reason to come back to the US
So then you'd be paying for it with higher prices.
>>76563126
>>76566524
I'm already willing to pay more for products made in the USA whenever I can find them
>>76565558
And our illegal immigrants isn't their problem. Your selfish logic works against you just as well. Not an argument
>>76566493
Oh, I'm dealing with bait.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cognitive+dissonance
>>76563126
>>76566719
Americans illegally emigrating to Mexico? They should be kicked the fuck out.
anyone else confused why we say BUILD WALL, when mexico is only going to pay for it? they're not building it, most likely the corps of engineers will
>>76563127
maybe his wall is gonna be as real as his debate with bolshevik bernstein?
>>76566736
You're dealing IN bait, anon. Sorry it didn't go like you hoped.
I still responded a few times before you ran out of bullshit, though, so there's that. You got me!
>>76567010
They're paying for it. American workers will be employed in the construction since the beaners would undoubtedly sabotage it.
>>76563174
Michael Obama is a hot tranny tho amrite?
Walking talking jokes cant make fun of walking talking jokes. That's not how it works.
>>76561920
You're right. He is going to need meme magic supporters in the House and Senate.
>>76564370
>We'll blow them up if they don't
How stupid are you? Mexico is entirely reliant on the US economically
>>76566988
You don't understand. Americans are the first ones to claim "illegal immigrants", as in: humans who cross the national border and enter America illegally, thus becoming "our problem". Mexico doesn't give a fuck about some prick with an opinion like you. They don't care about the immigrants once they cross the border either. Get it?
>>76561920
He will build the wall...He has executive power of ICE and he can use the funds how he likes
>>76563126
Ban the leafs
>>76565763
Trump will say fuck you to the international court.
>>76565319
The wall is going to keep out illegal immigrants. Not the legal ones.
>>76567433
See my previous post here.
>>76565636
>>76566401
He can say "fuck you" to anyone. But it doesn't matter. The money to pay off the damages already exists in Mexico. The Mexican government can take it any time they want.
In fact, if Trump goes to the Mexican government with this plan, they'll say fuck you to him. If I was sitting in a diplomat's office in Mexico city and I was presented with this, I'd send it back with what amounts to "Go ahead, do it."
Here's the problem that trumpfags don't understand. They think Business Negotiations are the same as International Negotiations. OR they think Business Negotiations are harder than International Negotiations.
Here's the different. If a business deal goes wrong, maybe someone loses money, maybe you don't make as much money as you would have, at worst the company goes under.
If an international deal doesn't go through, people can die. It's at a level of tension and importance magnitudes above business deals. International diplomats make Trumps "negotiators" that he keeps talking about look like fucking children. They are unqualified hacks about to be set up for a job that is more important than ANYTHING they've done before.
>>76567971
Why do you just keep repeating the same shit over and over again?
Yeah, Mexico doesn't want to pay for it. No fucking shit. Mexico also doesn't have a choice in the matter. If they don't pay for it as a sign of good will, they will pay for it through taxation with interest.
You seem to have this funny weird misconception that Mexico is a sovereign country. It's not. It relies on the US economically.
>>76568306
>You seem to have this funny weird misconception that Mexico is a sovereign country.
Swissfag, you may think Trump is going to strongarm his way through this bullshit, but you can't. Our international system was built so dumb strongarm tactics like that just don't work. It's specifically set up like that BECAUSE of how high tension negotiations like international trade deals are, where thousands of people could die in a month because of dumb tactics like you'll find in art of the deal.
Do you know who else uses strongarm tactics on the world stage? North Korea and Iran. They're shitholes with people dying of starvation every day. They're pariahs. China and Russia also used to use those tactics often, and they dialed them back hard core over the past 20 years.
Those sanctions imposed on Russia fucked them over hard. They can't even take half of Ukraine. Talk about "Not a sovereign country"
Can Mexico even afford to pay for the wall's upkeep? What about security?
How much of remittances are from illegal immigrants in the first place?
No wall? I'll settle for landmines.
>>76568639
This has nothing to do with "strongarming". That's just you using a big scary word trying to influence the argument with language.
It's standard economical practice and done by the EU extensively.
>>76568766
The actual number isn't known. That's because the only number kept track of is the amount of money sent in wire transfers to Mexico, which includes all businesses, including business transfers sent from U.S. nationals to U.S. nationals
Trump's 24 Billion is based on some guesswork based on the amount of Illegals in the U.S. and some polling.
>>76569028
Which is a crime against humanity now.
But that's not the first time Trump has advocated one.
>>76569040
You said "Mexico isn't a sovereign country because we can fuck them economically to our will"
That is LITERALLY strongarming
>>76563632
It's already been approved jackass. Has been since 2006. The only thing holding it up is the President has refused to tell DHS to build it.
>>76565636
>If we "damage" mexican companies or peoples by requiring remittances to be taxed, by requiring taxes, by going against a signed trade deal, the Mexican government can take us to international court to receive repairations for those damages. We'd loose.
This is a total fantasy and complete nonsense. The US is a sovereign nation and can do whatever the fuck it wants with money flowing out of its domestic economy.
>>76565319
>It's pure bullshit
It's already been done you stupid fuck.
>>76569597
We gave up some of that sovereignty when we signed our trade deals.
We put clauses like that in to make sure countries like Guatemala don't balk out of deals when they realize that having Pepsi put a plant down there isn't actually in their own national interest. We made deals that disallow that shit, and agreed to the same terms to make them seem fair. Now they're biting us in the ass.
Ask Argentina about trying to back out of a trade deal. Or the Netherlands. It requires actual thought to get out of these deals. Self regulation and loophole jumping is what's going to win the day. Blanket statements like Trumps are just going to tank the economy.
>>76569262
Where did I say that? I'd love to see that specific quote in one of my posts, would be quite the mindfuck.
I said that Mexico is dependant on the US economically and if they refuse to pay for something, the US can just make them pay for it through trade with them, which again, Mexico is entirely reliant on economically.
Here's a good read because you seem to lack any sort of knowledge on the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_sanctions
If you actually read it, you'll learn that the US already does this to various countries. Those countries had the choice to comply or be sanctioned, and they chose the latter.
In the case of Mexico, it wouldn't be an entirely classical sanction because the main goal would still be collecting funding rather than cutting trade entirely. The US wouldn't be stopping support of Mexico, they'd simply collect a fee indirectly.
It isn't LITERALLY strongarming no matter what by the way, because the US doesn't have arms. Are you dumb?
>>76569946
Here's the difference. NAFTA.
We signed a deal with them. They also signed the GATT, along with us. Not to mention all the subsequent BITs and side deals.
>>76569936
Care to point out the specific clause in NAFTA or whatever other bullshit that specifically forbids taxing your own fucking money? It doesn't matter either way.
>>76563126
>>76563126
Lol don't kid yourself, Canadians aren't allowed to use hate speech. You'll be imprisoned for the slur against your LGBT friends in this post before the election.
>>76569546
If it's that easy then why isn't Trump using that info to his advantage?
If he could legitimately just tell someone to build the wall, why doesn't he let us know that he can?
>>76561920
FUCK MY WIFE AND MY NIECES
THIS IS MY C.UCK REPORT
MASTURBATION, NO FEELING, JACKIN' OFF IN THE CORNER WHILE TYRONE IS BREEDING
CAUSE IM LOSING MY SIGHT, LOSING MY MIND
WISH SOMEBODY WOULD STRAIGHTEN MY SPINE
ALZHEIMER’S IN MY LIFE, I'M LEGALLY BLIND
WISH SOMEBODY WOULD STRAIGHTEN MY SPINE
NOTHING’S ALRIGHT, NOTHING IS FINE
I’M CUMMING AND I’M CRYING
>>76561920
Whatever happened to Gitmo? Is it still operating?
>>76564105
His other points are bullshit because it's literally IN LAW to build the wall, as in its already permitted someone just has to do it.
>>76570169
He has.
>>76570169
Because Trump wants to stir up controversy. That's why he didn't just say the judge was in La Raza, he said he was Mexican.
>>76570131
Article 101: Establishment of the Free Trade Area
The Parties to this Agreement, consistent with Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, hereby establish a free trade area.
Article 302: Tariff Elimination
1. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, no Party may increase any existing customs duty, or adopt any customs duty, on an originating good.
2. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, each Party shall progressively eliminate its customs duties on originating goods in accordance with its Schedule to Annex 302.2.
3. On the request of any Party, the Parties shall consult to consider accelerating the elimination of customs duties set out in their Schedules. An agreement between two or more Parties to accelerate the elimination of a customs duty on a good shall supersede any duty rate or staging category determined pursuant to their Schedules for such good when approved by each such Party in accordance with its applicable legal procedures.
I can start pulling from the GATT, too, which is probably more important, as it sets out what happens when you fuck up.
>>76569936
Who cares about trade deals? Is there any country strong enough to wage war economically (other than China) or through military? No, that's all that needs to be said.
>>76570082
Here's the difference you stupid fuck, we alread DO tax remittance. We have for several years. Nobody does shit about it.
>>76570469
Remittance aren't goods m8. This doesn't matter. Plus Trump wants to repeal NAFTA anyway.
>>76563126
>>76570566
>>76570579
We can't raise them, only lower them.
Chapter Fourteen: Financial Services
Article 1404: Cross-Border Trade
1. No Party may adopt any measure restricting any type of cross-border trade in financial services by cross-border financial service providers of another Party that the Party permits on the date of entry into force of this Agreement, except to the extent set out in Section B of the Party's Schedule to Annex VII.
2. Each Party shall permit persons located in its territory, and its nationals wherever located, to purchase financial services from cross-border financial service providers of another Party located in the territory of that other Party or of another Party. This obligation does not require a Party to permit such providers to do business or solicit in its territory. Subject to paragraph 1, each Party may define "doing business" and "solicitation" for purposes of this obligation.
3. Without prejudice to other means of prudential regulation of cross-border trade in financial services, a Party may require the registration of cross-border financial service providers of another Party and of financial instruments.
4. The Parties shall consult on future liberalization of cross-border trade in financial services as set out in Annex 1404.4.
>>76570082
NAFTA doesn't make shit for a difference because it's already being disregarded. Disregarding it a little bit more is not going to cause any problems.
GATT was just a one-time thing. It's not really preventing anything from happening.
>>76565636
why are you such a faggot?
>Here, I'll give you the short and long of it.
>lehatman.jpg
>>76570734
Again, this doesn't apply to remittance at all.
>>76570469
Trump doesn't want to tax Mexican goods. Christfuck you're stupid.
>>76570548
So we're going to invade mexico. When they say no and we raise tariffs and taxes on remittances and they take the goods of U.S. nationals to pay off damages, the only recourse then is to invade mexico
After that, NO COUNTRY would ever trust us with a trade deal EVER again. Our economy would tank over a fucking wall, retard.
You see, the point is, dumbass, he's not going to win. This may be a landslide Democratic victory the likes we haven't seen since LBJ beat Goldwater back in 1964.
But, you aspie, millennial fucktards on this board are too stupid to know your own history and think this is a "unique" moment.
>Never trust anyone under 30. You'll soon come to understand that if you don't now.
>>76570734
Has nothing to do with taxing remittance. Which we already do.
>>76570871
Or we just tax remittance and nobody does anything about it because they can't.
>Oh no Mexico is going to sue us!
top lel
>>76570833
Article 1416: Definitions
For purposes of this Chapter:
financial service means a service of a financial nature, including insurance, and a service incidental or auxiliary to a service of a financial nature;
I'd need to start case-lawing it from here, which would take a few hours of research, but I can assure you that includes remittances
>>76571104
WE ALREADY TAX REMITTANCE. Fucking hell. We've been doing it for several years. If it wasn't allowed, it would have been stopped.
>>76561920
He's going to die of a heart attack soon, so it doesn't matter. CIA already handled it. Just like they did with Marley.
>>76561920
He is most definitely building the fucking wall.
The pendulum is swinging back and there are a ton of fucking bricks on the end of it that are going to be stacked right the fuck up on the boarder.
I can not fucking wait.
I can not wait for the curtain drop and expose these fucking redundant liberal faggots....and for realism and strength to return to the social dialogue and the US government.
This fucking world. Its going to have to go back.
>>76571059
How many times do I need to say this?
If we tax them, and they sue. They will win. If they win, they can take property of US Nationals that are ALREADY IN MEXICO
>>76570983
Keep saying it. Not going to make it true.
>>76570755
The GATT is not a "one time thing". It creates a "Round System".
>>76570808
People are retards and don't take my word for it. And that is the short of it anon. The long of it would take many years.
>>76571254
But we can't raise those taxes. We can only lower them.
>>76571351
We don't take your word for it because we already do what you're wasting your time arguing we can't do.
>>76571449
You stupid fuck. They were instituted just a few years ago. They are not part of NAFTA agreement. They're not even done by te Feds. Goddamn you're a collossal faggot.
>>76571486
See >>76571449
We can only make the decision to lower it. Once we lower it, we can't raise it up again. Not even to the level it used to be at.
>>76571104
Bullshit. The tax doesn't have to be on the service itself.
>>76571351
Taking US property? Are you a retard? There's no magical international organization that can enforce or have any jurisdiction over that.
>>76561920
Trump will probably drop out in October
>>76571571
Where the fuck have you seen that? We haven't raised Remittance tax to Mexico in DECADES
>>76561920
Compelling Mexico to Pay for the Wall
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/pay-for-the-wall
He's already told you some of the details.. But leftists pretend like he has no positions or any details.. That way they can keep claiming that it's not possible..
>>76563632
It's already written in law to build the wall.
>>76571694
you wish, shill.
>>76571612
It's called the police power which every sovereign has. Have you ever heard of a takings? The only reason there must be a good reason for a takings to happen is because we prohibit our government from making a takings with our Bill of Rights.
Our international law has been built in this image. The only thing holding back a country from making a takings is their agreement to follow international law. If an international court convened under international law OK's a takings by a country, they have every right to take whatever the fuck they want in their borders. Hell, if you lose a takings case in U.S. court, you can go up to International court and appeal it there. Even if you lose at the Supreme court level.
"Compelling Mexico to Pay for the Wall
Introduction: The provision of the Patriot Act, Section 326 - the "know your customer" provision, compelling financial institutions to demand identity documents before opening accounts or conducting financial transactions is a fundamental element of the outline below. That section authorized the executive branch to issue detailed regulations on the subject, found at 31 CFR 130.120-121. It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following: "
"On day 1 promulgate a "proposed rule" (regulation) amending 31 CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to include wire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States."
On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest. They receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens. It serves as de facto welfare for poor families in Mexico. There is no significant social safety net provided by the state in Mexico."
On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect."
(continues)
>>76572104
It's already been linked, fag.
>>76571983
A tax isn't a "takings."
>>76572104
Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules: There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs, and which we are obligated to respond to; the impact of any tariffs on the price imports will be more than offset by the economic and income gains of increased production in the United States, in addition to revenue from any tariffs themselves. Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage and will win the negotiation. By definition, if you have a large trade deficit with a nation, it means they are selling far more to you than the reverse - thus they, not you, stand to lose from enforcing trade rules through tariffs (as has been done to save many U.S. industries in the past).
Cancelling visas: Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Mexico is totally dependent on the United States as a release valve for its own poverty - our approvals of hundreds of thousands of visas to their nationals every year is one of our greatest leverage points. We also have leverage through business and tourist visas for important people in the Mexican economy. Keep in mind, the United States has already taken in 4X more migrants than any other country on planet earth, producing lower wages and higher unemployment for our own citizens and recent migrants.
Visa fees: Even a small increase in visa fees would pay for the wall. This includes fees on border crossing cards, of which more than 1 million are issued a year. The border-crossing card is also one of the greatest sources of illegal immigration into the United States, via overstays. Mexico is also the single largest recipient of U.S. green cards, which confer a path to U.S. citizenship. Again, we have the leverage so Mexico will back down."
>The International Justice system that was set up, is run by, and is funded by the United States is going to rule against the United States in favor of some third-world shithole for entirely legal actions that routinely take place between nations
>The international banking system that the United States is the cornerstone of will take money out of their own pocket to prop up corrupt Mexicans against the trillions of dollars American investors have in the system
>The international community would support Mexico over the United States in literally any dispute between the two nations
>The United States itself is not the primary enforcer of international law and could not easily pull the entire system crashing to the ground if it were turned against it
Read a fucking book Pablo
>>76563632
>>76564370
Trump even with an Executive Order could stop remittances really fast. Just expand it to require more checks.
Mexican leaders are terrified of that. Mexico depends on those remittances every month. Even a 6 week interruption would cripple them. People wouldn't be able to pay rent, by food. That effect would move on up. It'd a be a total disaster.
When Trump wins, Mexico is going to jump to the negotiating table since their violent rhetoric will no longer be enough.
>>76572170
I'm talking about the second part of your post. The "Taking US property? Are you a retard? There's no magical international organization that can enforce or have any jurisdiction over that." part
The first part is just slightly retarded. I didn't feel the need to respond to that. Only the really retarded part.
>>76561920
>can't build a wall
It would be easy to build a wall. It will cost less than 1% of the US's annual budget, and most of it will be paid for by tariffs on Mexican corporations.
The only reason it couldn't be built is if the pozzed-up kikepuppet cucks in Congress voted against it.
>>76572284
None of what you've been saying has made any sense.
>the US will magically lose in a court with no real power and have property seized for taxing money
>>76572170
Also, fuck me, I just realized that you're double wrong. I didn't even comprehend your retardation for a second.
A tax can TOTALLY be a takings. In certain specific circumstances
"Congress is permitted to make rational classifications in enacting taxes, so long as the members of each class are treated uniformly, and that the tax is uniform geographically. See, e.g., Magoun v. Ill. Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U.S. 283, 299-301."
>>76571715
https://justiceinmexico.org/mexican-deputy-blasts-oklahomas-remittance-tax/
>>76563126
a fucking leaf jesus christ how embarrassing
>>76572499
Are you a hillary shill or some faggot failing law school?
>When a government actually or constructively takes private property for public use, that government must pay "just compensation" to the property's former owners.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/takings
Fuck off.
>>76572415
>with no real power
And this is where your bullshit stems from. The average trumpfag thinks that international law is something vague, far off in the future. International law is here. Now. You're already too late to the party.
And the power they hold isn't something like a military. It's the sheer fact that Mexico has a TON of U.S. national's property within it's borders. We fought tooth and nail so we can fuck over countries that try to fuck us over by raising the stakes of backing out of a trade deal. Now we want to back out of trade deals, and our own rules are being used against us.
>>76563126
He fucking better. He'll uncuck Trudeau
>>76572667
We enforce international law. Nobody else matters.
>muh US national property
So mexico's military is going to forcibly seize property and crash their own economy? Brilliant.
>>76570923
This year marked a record number of Democrats switching parties to Republican.
Also, there's no nigger candidate, so many of the coloreds will be more likely to stay home a drink malt liquor instead of voting. Also, many Bernouts are upset by Shillary and her Jewish handlers like Debbie Shultz and George Soros cheating them.
>>76572667
>international law
International law is pretty much whatever the big players agree to do at any given time. If the US decides to do something, there's no court that can really do much about it. Hence the UN's Strongly-worded-letter-syndrome.
AT WORST, the EU and China and others might say "hey you're being unfair to Mexico so we're not going to do XYZ anymore". But that's a huge if.
>>76573069
China won't even give a shit. I guess some of Europe might whine.
>>76572641
I'm a faggot about to graduate from law school.
What you posted is why the current tax scheme isn't considered a takings. Because it's applied uniformly and uniform geographically. Remember though, that case that quoted that other case that I was quoting was a 5/4 decision.
Go read some court cases on takings. It's interesting shit. But ultimately fruitless. The Federal government doesn't fuck up often.
>>76572512
>Oklahoma
>The united states.
Here's the kicker. Oklahoma is technically not a party to NAFTA, so they're technically allowed to do this. However, there's 0 chance it'll fly in international court. There was a case similar to this in the EU related to this. Let's see if I can dig it up real quick. Long story short, the taxing county lost.
I can also find a supreme court decision related to the idea that International Treaties are in effect on states and though we need to enforce them by a very long process of suing within the United states with a victory in international court, unless we completely upturn our entire system of international treaty checks and balances and federalism, we'd still lose.
>>76572667
>Mexico nationalizing billions of dollars worth of property owned by American citizens and corporations
Boy I sure hope they don't like having an economy anymore when we embargo the shit out of them.
>b-b-but embargos aren't legal under (((international law)))
Enforced by the United States and literally no other relevant country on the planet would give a shit.
You're fucking delusional.
>>76573213
So taxing money is now a "takings" because it isn't geographically uniform? That's total nonsense; federal income tax isn't geographically uniform either. Virtually no tax is.
>>76573213
I think you missed the point. I specifically linked that instead of a more general piece to demonstrate that the Mexicans are well aware of the practice, aren't doing shit, and most certainly aren't suing anyone.
Further, as I'm sure you've heard about in passing during your time as a student, asset forfeiture is a thing.
Do you honestly believe Mexico is going to sue us for seizing the funds of illegal enterprise conducted in our own country? Do you think they'd have even a chance of winning?
If so, why haven't they sued us over all the drug money we seize from Mexican nationals?
Your position is theory without precedent or experience, honestly.
>>76573561
>So taxing money is now a "takings" because it isn't geographically uniform?
Yeah. This was a big deal prior to the adoption of the federal income tax, and then again in the 50s and 60s for a little while.
I'm doing other shit now, so I can't give you a lesson. Long story short, the Supreme Court basically just said that the geographically uniform thing doesn't apply to the Income tax specifically for some pretty trumped up reasons. Like I said, interesting but ultimately fruitless.
>>76573811
And property taxes?
>>76573720
>aren't doing shit, and most certainly aren't suing anyone.
Which is why I mentioned it's an extremely long and arduous process. The oklahoma remittances translates to a measly 1% and change. But a remittance enough to change policy is going to end with them in court. I guarantee you that.
Strategic victories. That's what international law is about.
>>76573886
There is no federal property tax (technically). Specifically because of the geographic problem.
>>76573213
>Here's the kicker. Oklahoma is technically not a party to NAFTA, so they're technically allowed to do this
Lawfag that doesn't know the constitution. Nice.
>>76574112
That doesn't matter. The states are subject to federal law.
>>76574155
Read the entire post anon. "Technically" is a real big "Technically"
It won't fly if they were challenged in court.
>>76574237
Not taxation law. You're causing a lot of headaches right now, so I'm going to direct you to wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax_in_the_United_States#Constitutional_limitations
>>76574243
The Mexican government threw a bitch fit and ultimately did nothing. As I've said, this is a thing we've already done.
I have a feeling we're doing your homework for you.
>>76572752
Uncucking Trudeau would be a miracle.
>>76574483
I'm the only one doing homework here, anon. I'm the only one putting up actual case, statute and treaty law.
See >>76574003
I'm looking for the cases, but you fags keep putting up dumb shit like asking about why the feds aren't allowed property taxes while states are.
Honestly, I don't know why I'm doing this. You faggots will just ignore it and make another 20 Trump threads, or the thread will 404 before I even find it.
Trumpfags bait me again.
>>76574401
That doesn't mean anything. You are saying that taxing remittance would be a takings because it would not be uniform. A tax on remittance applies to anyone sending money to mexico. You can say that it's defacto not uniform, but the same is true virtually all of our taxes (ex: the rich pay more for property taxes).
>>76574680
Whatever dude. It can happen because it currently does happen. You've made good arguments though. Since you've read his 'Pay for Wall ' page, did you see his immigration page? What about the other options to pay for the wall?
>>76574774
No, you confused me shitting on you for one thing for another. I responded to one post, and then you thought I was responding to a different part of that post, so you posted something dumb in response, and then I pointed out I was talking about something different, and then I also made a second post pointing out how dumb what you posted in response was, not referencing the remittances thing. Reread the posts.
Taxing remittances are fine in terms of geographic uniformity.
>>76574955
Whatever faggot. Nobody can stop us from taxing remittance to Mexico.
>oh no the international court that we control will rule against us
>oh no Mexico will nationalize our property and crash their economy
>>76574955
> you confused me
Hope you're not looking at trial law.
>>76574849
Paying for the wall is dumb.
The only way to fix our economic woes is to self-regulate international investments so that we don't drive other countries to work towards the lowest common denominator. We need to invest in ways that encourage the raising of wages and environmental protections so the world catches up with us and trade normalizes. Unrestricted investing has proven that it only causes countries to suppress wages and rights in order to make them more attractive for investment by comparison.
If you break the collective action problem (don't even need perfect regulation), you can break the downward spiral it creates.
All you need to do is make an outward investment board. Many countries have an inward facing investment board that reviews into-country external investments. Having one that reviews outgoing investments from our country will allow us to police who's using those trade deals to undercut U.S. labor markets. All you need to ask is a simple question. "Why invest in X country?" If it's because of slave labor and low environmental law (or extensions thereof, like cheap steel (which is cheap because of slave labor)), then you reject the investment. Instead, encouraging creative thinking like "We're investing because they're the best in BLANK", you can make countries invest in specializing to make it easier to invest in from the U.S.
>>76561920
>can't build a wall
Bully pulpit time.
>There are people, cowardly, vile people who don't think having a border is important.
>>76575548
>The only way to fix our economic woes
Stopped reading right there.
>>76563126
it's always a leaf
>>76575717
Nah, you stopped at
>Paying for the wall is dumb
Your loss, anon.
>>76575799
That's an idiotic statement. Walls aren't built for free. So I ignore it and pressed on. Until I got to your second idiotic statement. Then I quit.
>>76575941
Well, I honestly don't think we need the wall, so paying for a wall we don't need would be stupid.
>>76576022
>I honestly don't think we need the wall
(You)
>>76576449
Hillary is a Globalist shill and will sink us just like Trump. I made that clear earlier in the thread.
Don't get me wrong, I said before that at least Trump sees that there's a problem. But being brazen and stupid about it is going to tank our economy. We need to think through this slowly and surely.
>>76576670
>slowly and surely
Dammit, Jeb.
>>76576022
I know you don't. That's why reading the rest of your bullshit was a waste of time.
>>76576670
>We lose half a trillion dollars a year subsidizing illegal immigration
>Spending ten billion on a long-term solution is "brazen and stupid" and would somehow "tank our economy"
>>76576449
>>76563710
Newfag here.
How do I hide, and what does Sage mean precisely? I keep seeing it pop up, but I'm lost.
>>76577317
Lurk moar faggot
>>76569546
Source? Than why didn't Bush 2 do anything about it?
>>76577518
He did. Everyone made fun of him for spending so much money on it.
>>76570402
When the fuck did La Raza stoop to the level of the KKK and the Black Panthers?
>>76577622
>Trump is a RACIST, he said bad things about a Mexican (who is totally not a Mexican guys)
>La Raza is an organization of peace I mean have you seen them burn a cross? Who cares if their mission statement is to genocide whites and conquer half the United States IT'S 2016 PEOPLE
You guys arrnt thinkig this well and this is why trumpfags arr stupid: if we send mexicans back to mexico like trump said. How can we threaten mexicans with stoping wired money? In a broader question: how can we "force" mexico to pay for the wall?
>>76577317
>>76577317
Consider this a one time spoonfeed.
To hide a thread, I assume you're using the catalog.
>>>/pol/catalog
Find the little arrow thing here and click to hide the thread. It won't show up anymore in your catalog.
Sage: Japanese for "to lower". You can respond to a thread without bumping it to the top. Type "sage" into the options field when you are responding to a post.
Consider this your one and only intro course to 4chins.
sage since I'm not contributing anything.
>>76578279
Either they agree to pay directly or we will collect tariffs on their trade with us and they will pay indirectly.
It's very simple.
>>76578279
Remittance accounts for more money into their economy than oil sales. Remittance also isn't the only option he's offered. Nor are his other options the only options available.
>>76577317
>>76578643
Forgot pic for hiding. Double sage.
Useful advice: make sure you're 18. As the other user pointed out, you should really lurk for awhile before posting. It will help you learn how this place works and shit.
>>76563400
>annex Mexico
>>76578668
>>76578700
You guys are forgetting something. Mexico is our trade partner by policy (nafta) and also, mexico would replace our asses with another world power who is on the rice (kek) China. Seriouly trumpfags. Do some research, hes not as wise as you see him.
>>76578973
I'll give you a freebie. Part of the reason NAFTA wasn't a success for Mexico is because; as we signed the deal, China was getting favored trade status. China undercut Mexico in labor. If this TPP goes through, Mexico will be in the shitter for another generation as they wont be able to keep pace with Vietnam. Trump is the very best thing for Mexico. And that's a lot of fucking leverage.
>>76578973
>China is a manufacturing giant
>they will outsource to Mexico
Literally what
>>76579300
Tpp includes mexico. If trump tries to sever ties, mexico can sue.
>>76579680
That really didn't address the issue. But sure.
>>76563126
Amen canada, amen. In my eyes, you are an honorary american. send me an email if you need help with the visa.
>>76578973
>mexico would replace our asses with another world power
Literally the exact opposite of what you are saying is true.
Mexico is a convenient nearby source of cheap labor, resources, and goods.
If we got in a trade war with Mexico, we (our companies) have the economic power to find other sources of cheap labor, resources, and goods. Like China and Vietnam.
Mexico would lose by far its biggest customer and there is no replacement in the global economy for the consumer base of the United States. Especially not fucking China, you mongoloid. Why would Chinese people want to import Mexico's cheap shit when they have their own even cheaper shit?
Yes, Mexico is one of our major trading partners but, like every other nation in the world, they need us more than we need them. We would suffer another recession, maybe even a depression, but without the United States, Mexico would collapse.
>>76579881
Hmm. Guess im wrong. Either way, i dont feel Trump suits us for POTUS.
>>76580025
>feel
Are you a Jedi?
>>76580001
>. Why would Chinese people want to import Mexico's cheap shit when they have their own even cheaper shit?
All that cheap shit you go down to Mexico and buy, is made in China.
>>76581103
>China wants to buy their own cheap shit back from Mexico
I'm running out of condescending anime pictures
