Dumbest Plan EVAR

So the Hairy Hemorrhoid™ finally came out with a “plan” to force Mexico to pay for a wall between our two countries, and a stupider plan, if you can even call it that, has never been proposed.

Basically, he plans to impound all remittances from illegal wages going to Mexico from the United States steal people’s money.

I shit you not.

dumbshitI don’t even know where to begin with this dumbshittery.

Immigrants both legal and illegal send money back home to Mexico. How the hell does one separate the “good” money from the “bad?”

Seizure of private property without due process in order to threaten Mexico with reducing the country’s GDP by an estimated less than two percent? Good plan, there, Sparky!

Stop all financial transactions from banks here to Mexico? You’ve just pissed off the financial sector and empowered bulk cash smugglers, who make billions of dollars per year carting monetary instruments across the Mexican border.

And just how much would the law enforcement resources cost? You know… the ones that would have to be expended checking on the immigration status of every individual who wants to wire money overseas? And how much more will it cost to deal with the increase in bulk cash smuggling? Is he going to hire officers to go through everyone’s mail, when inevitably immigrants start buying pre-paid cash cards to mail home to Mexico after financial institutions are prevented from wiring money across the border?

Oh, and by the way, since Mexico is our second largest goods export market, per the US Trade Representative, what does he think will happen to our exports? He whines about a $56 billion trade deficit now? Wait till he tries to implement restrictions on financial transfers and confiscate people’s wages!

Yeah, the guy is a douche stick with ears. Can we please stop with the joke that is his candidacy now? Please?

53 responses

  1. I will go to my grave failing to understand how a self-proclaimed Conservative, could support a big government liberal – for nominee of the GOP. Nevermind that said candidate is an intellectually unmoored, vile, immature bully.

    Like

    1. RE: Going to Your Grave?

      I sincerely hope not.

      As for why does an Honest-to-God ‘Conservative’ support Trump, I’ll try to explain my particular perspective. Trump:

      • Is an opponent of the GOP establishment (GOPe). A group that has been part and parcel of the deterioration of the Republic under Obama. Boehner and Ryan both support Obama instead of standing in the way of his Executive Branch overreach….which destroys the balance of powers in the federal government. Obama rules like the Caesars and the ancient Roman Senate does NOTHING.

      We need not only Trump in the White House, but Ryan and his ilk to be replaced in Congress.

      • Calls a Spade-a-Spade. None of this irrational and destructive political correctness that silences honest discussion and debate. As Vice President Hubert Humphrey(D) put it so succinctly back in the 1960s….

      Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.

      Political correctness silences the most important aspect of freedom, as expressed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

      • Claims he’ll put an end to the outrageous violation of our laws via illegal immigration.

      Maybe you haven’t noticed, but myriad diseases heretofore rare in our country are now amongst US, infecting young and old alike. I’m not looking forward to the announcement that incurable TB is now running wild here, as it is in India.

      And then there is the jihadi factor…..

      That’s just three of many reasons.

      And I hope that helps.

      Like

    2. RE: Retired Paratrooper?

      Which batt? I was 1-508th (Red Devils) in the ’70s.

      Fury from the Sky

      Like

    3. cbpelto – I respect your point of view regarding the GOP establishment, but when the opposition to such comes in the form of a vile, immature blowhard who preaches nothing more than ‘hope and change’, it cheapens Conservatism to the point of ideological suicide. Trump will gift the general to Hillary.

      Political correctness is an empty crutch used by Trump to piss on the Constitution. PC is an invention that deserves no rational discourse on our national stage. Debate the issues and the effects….not shallow rhetoric and empty bombast; that is merely an appeal to emotion – the prime tactic of the left.

      I wouldn’t piss on Trump if he were on fire; he makes me embarrassed to be an American.

      re: paratrooper – I was in 1/325 and a JM instructor at 507th, both in the ’90’s. Both motto’s pale in comparison to 508th’s!

      Like

    4. RE: Harsh!

      Wouldn’t put out a fire burning on someone you don’t like.

      ’nuff said.

      RE: Political Correctness? A ‘Crutch’?

      Hardly a crutch used by Trump. More like a club used by Progs. I’ve spent quite a bit of time dealing with it as it relates to politics in my county. And it’s not just in my county, but everywhere.

      Or do you support the use of law suits against people who—for their honestly held religious beliefs—don’t ‘go with the flow’?

      RE: 1/325

      That’s the Red Falcons? Or the White or Blue? I never really paid too much attention to those batts outside of 3d Brigade, 82d. Except the 504th. You know the jodie for them when passing their morning run formations on the banana belt….😉

      RE: Jumpmaster Instructor

      Way kool…..😉

      I took the JM course at Bragg in ’77. Managed to pass it on the first time through. Had to take over the pre-jump briefing from the Ranger instructor at Benning in ’79. He was screwing up the towed jumper procedure. He thought I’d make an @ss out of myself. But afterwards congratulated me on the briefing.

      Like

      1. For me, PC is bias…..plain and simple. There’s no definition, no metric, no substance. As such, Trump’s harangues are appeals to emotion. I’m not sure what religiously based suits you’re referring to, but a private citizens labor should be able to be dispensed to whomever and whenever they decide. That said, I likewise I don’t support lawsuits against media outlets for being critical of politicians – ala Trump.

        ——

        I graduated the Bragg course in ’93, but taught at Benning; best assignment I had in my career, and got me my first contractor job after retirement. I think I can still pitch the JMPI class!

        1/325 were indeed the Red Falcons.

        Like

    5. RE: PC Attacks on Religious Folks

      Missed the items about homosexuals suing single-store, no-federal-contract, bakeries owned by religious Christians for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding?

      http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/20/bakers-who-were-fined-135000-for-gay-wedding-cake-refusal-deliver-a-major-surprise-and-a-powerful-message-to-10-gay-rights-groups/

      That’s just two examples. More can be found on the web. Items include refusal to allow such an event to take place on their property, which is used for weddings and other such events and being sued by the homosexual community.

      RE: PC In and Of Itself

      I like the way some Texas A&M alum put it….

      Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. — Texas A&M alumni

      Like

      1. No, I didn’t miss those, I just didn’t know which you were referring to. And while I oppose non-discrimination laws for private businesses, if some discrimination is not just, why isn’t all?

        And I see merit in the A&M Op, PC exists on both sides of the political spectrum.

        Like

    6. RE: Didn’t Miss Those?

      So you’re being deliberately ‘obtuse’?

      Like

    7. RE: [OT] Memory Lane — Benning School for Boys

      Benning would be a good assignment. Lots of sportiff things to do, if you’re into hunting and fishing and such.

      Was Country Barbecue still smoking? Best barbecue I ever had. And their Pineapple Chess pie was to kill for.

      RE: [OT] Memory Lane — Denver Federal Center (DFC)

      My best was working with a team of officers going from state to state helping the State Area Commands (STARCs)—the National Guard Adjutants General and their staffs—prepare for national emergencies, e.g., Gulf Wars, and natural disasters, e.g., Katrinas.

      • Denver area
      • Bankers hours
      • Mountains for skiing and camping
      • Fascinating operations

      [NOTE: You live in Oregon? Back in the 90s, Oregon STARC had their shit together in a tight little bag. Most impressive EOC I’d seen. We threw everything at them except of Godzilla. And they HAD an OPLAN for it. Volcanos. Earthquakes. Dam failures. Nuclear reactor containment structure cracks. EVERYTHING! VERY impressive.

      Hope for yours and everyone else there, they’re still on top of it all….. ;-)]

      Like

      1. Benning was great, but if you wanted an Army assignment with unlimited hunting/fishing…Alaska was the choice.

        I’m not in Oregon; but was born and raised there. After retiring from the Army, I settled in the Mecca of Contracting….Northern Virginia. Given that I plan for the Zombie Apocalypse [code: any calamity], I’m happier here than on fault lines and volcanoes.

        Like

    8. RE: [OT] The ‘Zombie Apocalyps’ (ZA)

      Every place you go has its own set of potential ZAs. Northern Virginia’s would include a massive tsunami should that volcano in the Azores decide to fall into the Atlantic. Or there be some largish cometary/meteorite impact in the same.

      Ever read Niven and Pournelle’s Lucifer’s Hammer?

      Colorado, along the Front Range has its issues. Bad ass hail storms. We’ve had the roof here replaced twice since 2003. And the occasional tornadic winds. A fly-by tornado tore major limbs off of two of our eleven 100+ year old trees in 2008. No serious damage done to the houses or cars. Dropped them in the—fortunately—empty street and driveway. And then went four blocks down the street and tore up all kinds of trees in the district park.

      My worst case scenario with the highest probability of occurrence is a successful nuclear EMP attack. A good-sized nuke detonated 250-300 miles above Nebraska.

      Check out…One Second After. Written by a Squid who did the same sort of work I used to do when I was at the DFC.

      I agree with his assessment that 50-90% of the population would be dead within 12 months of such an attack. The 50% in the rural areas, far away from metro areas. The 90% in the metro ones.

      Like

      1. Try not to do too many hyperlinks, because that throws your comments right back into moderation, and sometimes I don’t get a chance to go in and fish them out.

        Like

  2. Trump got noticed because he said things that other people were afraid to say, for fear of offending someone. Now he’s sounding like what he really is, a spoiled snot with no plan. In the end, when the GOP convention comes up, the nomination will probably go to either Cruz or Kasich.

    So we’re back to Square One, and we’ll end up with four years of shrillary, because this wad of dicksnot named Trump doesn’t know when to shut up. He is opportunistic, yes. He saw a vacuum and jumped into it. Now he’s backpedaling and throwing tantrums. Am I, or anyone else, supposed to take him seriously when he does this?

    Yeah, he IS going to drive voters over to that bimp, and she’ll drag the Bernout right along with her.

    Someone please let me know if civilization ever comes back into fashion? Thanks!

    Like

    1. The asshats who ran around campus chanting “Hey hey! Hey ho! Western Civ has got to go!” are getting their wish… and their opponents back then (“the silent majority”) are giving it to them.

      (Of course all they wanted to get rid of was the curriculum studying it, not realizing how much they benefit from the existence of such a thing, and how not knowing how it works and where it came from leads to its demise. But that’s just another example, number 3,526,234,865,427, of How Ideas Matter.)

      Like

    2. LOL! I think he wanted to buy himself a country, and then realized that it would be actual *gasp!* WORK!

      Like

  3. In what ought to be the easiest election for Republicans to win since at least 1996, the party is suiciding, with one of the factions led by someone who formerly supported the presumptive Dem nominee.

    Almost makes me want to wear aluminum haberdashery.

    Like

  4. As I expect you’re aware, I’m no Trump fan. But I think someone has finally been advising him. Unlike his earlier plan to impose additional tariffs on Mexican goods to finance the wall, this one would just be business as usual for FinCen. All he’d have to do is instruct Treasury that wire funds flowing to Mexico are suspected of being involved in illegal activities. Boom. Instant electronic asset forfeiture.

    [sarc] Of course, when FinCen was set up, no one imagined that it would be abused in such a fashion. [/sarc]

    Like

    1. Um. No. Actually, that’s not the way FinCEN works. Sorry, Bear.

      Like

    2. I’d rather not expand government with the scope of track every fund transfer heading south of the border, and then empower them to cross-check the sender against citizenship. We know from institutional experience that this effort would be astronomically over-budget and probably un-Constitutional.

      Like

    3. RE: Tracking Funds

      Maybe you haven’t noticed it, but the federal government is already tracking just about every exchange of monies.

      You can’t withdraw $3000 from your bank without the police being notified. And I’ve heard an unconfirmed report—I’m looking into—that a law was quietly passed saying the money in bank accounts is not YOUR money, but the banks. Looks like a first step towards ‘negative interest’ or the ‘Cyprus Solution’ to bank insolvency. Indeed. I see that JP Morgan banks are now limiting cash withdrawals at ATM devices. Something of an ‘indicator’ that they may be expecting some incident that will trigger a run on banks.

      The government does most of its tracking via credit card and check transactions. Specifically looking for selected items that would be ‘flags’ for drug, terrorism and other illicit activities. For example, large purchases of acetone, an ingredient in the production of meth.

      The only thing they don’t/can’t track is cash. Hence the recent resurgence for banning the $100 bill. That will be just the first step of going towards a ‘cashless’ society wherein EVERY transaction can be tracked.

      Like

      1. Listen – you really need to stop reading conspiritard sites. I can’t even begin to tell you in how many ways you’re either wrong, or misinterpreting what is going on here. Ugh. Forget it. You’re going to defend the Cheeto God no matter what.

        Considering the detailed responses I’ve given you in the past and you twisting and spinning like an eel to defend Trump, it’s quite obvious you’re impervious to logic.

        Enjoy the Mondale-type landslide Hillary victory if that douchebag gets the nomination.

        I’m done.

        Like

    4. RE: Conspiracy Theory

      Actually, many so-called ‘conspiracies theories’ have turned out to be VERY accurate.

      For instance:

      • Black Helicopters — Pooh-poohed by the Left and major media for years, turned out to be true. The 160th SOAR (Special Operations Aviation Regiment), headquartered at Fort Campbell has most of its choppers painted flat black. Their lineage dates back to the early 1980s. And where do you ‘hide an egg’?

      • ECHELON — Eavesdropping on electronic message traffic from the early 90s, was claimed to be ‘conspiracy theory’ by the left and major media. That is until someone let the proverbial cat out of the bag in the late 90s.

      Pardon me for bringing THIS up again, but IPB at CGSC teaches you how to (1) collect the ‘dots’, (2) connect the ‘dots’ and (3) see the Big Picture.

      Still looking for information that will confirm or deny the report, but I don’t rule it out out-of-hand, just because it’s ‘unpopular’. That makes for very bad ‘intelligence’ work. Don’t you think?

      Like

    5. The importance of information is proportional to its improbability.

      Like

  5. I fear, Nicki, that far too many will just consider that A Good Start.

    I couldn’t help but wonder how I’d feel if, due to economic turmoil in this country, I had to legally relocate to Canada, where I worked and remitted money back home to support my elderly mom, and the Canadian Government decided to build a wall between the two countries and seized my money to pay for it. Pissed, I’m sure, to put it mildly.

    A snake oil salesman who rightly perceived just how many people are eager to buy snake oil at this point in history.

    Like

  6. You’re falling for another media lie. Trump said to tax them, not impound or confiscate. Now I’m as anti income-tax as they come. But since the government is taxing everything of mine, what makes these remittances so holy they can’t be taxed, too?

    Like

    1. Except here’s the actual memo. And it has nothing to do with taxation.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/memo-explains-how-donald-trump-plans-to-pay-for-border-wall/2007/?tid=a_inl

      This isn’t the eeeeeeevilmedia trying to harm Trump. This is his own words on paper. No.

      Like

  7. So let me guess…another Trumproid who took someone’s word for it the media was misrepresenting him?

    It’s sad that a candidate for the Republican nomination lies more than our left-sucking media.

    Like

  8. And sad, in this case, that the media doesn’t even *have* to lie to make him look like batshit crazy.

    Like

    1. TO: CI
      RE: Defense of Trump Proposal

      I have no issue with the federal government seizing monies and other assets related to felonious activities by the perpetrators. Or are you suggesting that criminal activity should have no serious repercussions? I mean other than jail time?

      As for ‘dubious ground and for likely little return’, I think you’re overlooking other impacts from an overall program:

      • Fewer people will be coming here illegally if their funds they intend to send back home from working here will not make it home.

      • People already here illegally will be inclined to go back if the money they wanted to send back won’t get there.

      That’s just two of the by-products I can see.

      TO: Nicki
      RE: Say What?

      You REALLY think the government isn’t seizing monies and assets? And it’s not just the federal government doing it. Local authorities are doing it as well.

      Here’s a link for you about it….

      http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/230376/

      Like

    2. ACK! Wrong Reply Item….

      Sorry about that…..

      The only Man who was perfect got Himself nailed to a tree.

      Like

  9. So someone works, and earns money. Which is his private property, even if he’s here illegally. He’s free to with it what he wants. And Trump wants to take someone else’s private property? Oh, right, he’s the guy who wanted a widow’s house giving her only a quarter of what she’s already turned down.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. TO: CI
      RE: Defense of Trump Proposal

      I have no issue with the federal government seizing monies and other assets related to felonious activities by the perpetrators. Or are you suggesting that criminal activity should have no serious repercussions? I mean other than jail time?

      As for ‘dubious ground and for likely little return’, I think you’re overlooking other impacts from an overall program:

      • Fewer people will be coming here illegally if their funds they intend to send back home from working here will not make it home.

      • People already here illegally will be inclined to go back if the money they wanted to send back won’t get there.

      That’s just two of the by-products I can see.

      TO: Nicki
      RE: Say What?

      You REALLY think the government isn’t seizing monies and assets? And it’s not just the federal government doing it. Local authorities are doing it as well.

      Here’s a link for you about it….

      http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/230376/

      My apologies for the double-potings….. ;-(

      Like

      1. Gee, thanks for Instapundit links. They link to me quite a bit. I promise you I know much more about how government seizes assets, the legalities involved, and other details about this particular issue than any link you can throw my way, which BTW has nearly nothing to do with what we’re discussing and Trump’s plan.

        Like I said… you enjoy.

        Like

  10. RE: Impounding Illegal Money

    The federal government does this all the time. On both the individual and the international levels.

    On the international level, the way the US impounded Iranian assets during the Tehran Hostage Crisis of 1979. And on the individual level, seizure of monies and other assets related to drug crime.

    Why is the plan set forth by Trump any different from the latter?

    Like

    1. RE: Unlawful Presence/Improper Entry vs. Illegal Alien

      Both improper entry and unlawful presence should be avoided by any immigrant to the United States, but an illegal alien cannot be criminally charged or incarcerated simply for being undocumented. To learn more, check out FindLaw’s section on Immigration Law. — FindLaw at Link

      Can you say legalese ‘double talk’? It’s semantics: ‘illegal alien’ vs. ‘unlawful presence’ and ‘improper entry’. As Shakespeare would put it….

      ….Merde by any other name still smells….

      And this doesn’t answer my question to you about seizure of assets by the federal government.

      Like

    2. Thus far it seems your defense of Trump’s ‘plan’ is merely that the federal government is already doing likewise. Shouldn’t the rational Conservative argument centre around whether or not it’s just or Constitutional? In the case of Trumps offering, it would seem to be on dubious grounds and for likely little return.

      Like

      1. Except that the government is NOT doing likewise, and he has no idea what the hell he’s talking about. Sigh.

        Like

        1. True, my rebuttal was strictly in regards to using precedent alone as confirmation of Constitutionality.

          Like

    3. RE: By Precedent Alone

      Funny. Courts seem to use that all the time. Remember that old saw about the camels nose in the tent?

      For example. Look at the 100′ ‘zone’ around abortion mills where the Freedom of Speech is suspended.

      That started from the 100′ zone around polling places.

      And it has gone ON to the point that during major political conventions local authorities designate ‘Free Speech Zones’, well away from the convention location.

      P.S. Sorry about missing the ‘target’ in my earlier replies to you and Nicki. Too many irons in the fire…. ;-(

      Like

    4. Courts use settled law and judicial precedent, after a scholarly hearing of merits on both sides. For the State to increase its own scope and intrusive power, I want more than institutional/bureaucratic precedent.

      Like

    5. RE: Courts Use Settled Law?

      Are you being deliberately ‘obtuse’ again?

      Please explain the ‘settled law’ of Roe v. Wade. Or Reynolds v. Sim (1964) which overthrew every state constitution by making the state senate elected by population, instead of geographic region. And thus giving metropolitan areas the lions share of legislative power. Or more recently the homosexual marriage decision. [NOTE: Here in Colorado, the the Denver metroplex holds 17 of the 35 state senate seats. Throw in the Peoples Republic of Boulder and Fort Collins and they hold the majority. As a result, they garnier resources—fiscal and material, e.g., water—from anywhere they like. At the expense of the rest of the state.]

      Where is the ‘settled law’ of those decision?

      No. Since the 60s, courts, especially the Supreme Court, have been increasingly practicing judicial activism, making law of thin air.

      Like

    6. Are you being deliberately ‘obtuse’ again?

      Is it really necessary to lower the discourse to Trump standards? And are you saying that judicial decisions don’t rely on settled case law? That might be considered “obtuse”, if one were to appeal to emotion.

      In the case of Obergefell specifically, I’m not sure why you oppose the tenets of the Due Process clause. What you call ‘activism’, many of s call Constitutional:

      [w]ithout doubt…denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Meyer v. Nebraska, 1923

      Conservatives used to support and defend Liberty….now many of them are quasi-leftists.

      Like

    7. TO: CI
      RE: Obtuse

      No. It’s not going to Trump levels. It’s asking a simple question to avoid having to explain something to you of which you are already aware. For example, elsewhere on this thread you claimed you were unaware of religious persecution under the law. And when I pointed out two—of many—examples of homosexuals going after businesses, you said you WERE AWARE of them after all.

      Very disappointing of you.

      And now you’re ignoring the cases I pointed out to you where the courts make Law up as they go along. And attempting to change the subject. Again, disappointing.

      You debate almost like a Prog…..😉

      Like

    8. TO: CI
      RE: Settled Case Law

      And yes. Courts will use ‘case law’ as precedents for doing routine business.

      BUT, as I pointed out in Roe v. Wade and Reynolds v. Sims, they make law out out of ‘whole cloth’, when they want to.

      By the way, regarding Reynolds v. Sims, out of curiosity, how many state senate seats out of the total of how many, do the metropolitan areas of your state hold?

      As I think I mentioned, currently the Denver area alone holds 17 of the 35. Used to be Denver held 4, under the Colorado Constitution before the Supremes overthrew it.

      Like

  11. That picture of “The Donald” fills me with an unholy urge to construct a T-shirt with an edited version of the picture and the inscribed words, “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the stupidest of all?”

    I bet I could make a few bucks from posting such a T-shirt on Zazzle or CafePress! The best part would be funneling the profits to the Ted Cruz campaign. ^_^

    Liked by 1 person

  12. @me: “You’re falling for another media lie. Trump said to tax them, not impound or confiscate. Now I’m as anti income-tax as they come. But since the government is taxing everything of mine, what makes these remittances so holy they can’t be taxed, too?”

    @Nicki: Except here’s the actual memo. And it has nothing to do with taxation.

    @Nicki, the document you cited does not mention taxes or confiscation of remittances to Mexico. It mentions increasing Visa fees if Mexico does not pony up the full amount.

    It is a very strange copy as well. We don’t know who the recipients are. It is also unsigned. My guess is that the document is a fabrication.

    Like

    1. You know, this really amuses me. I discredit one claim, you come back with “Oh, the memo must be fake.” OK, here’s the memo from his website where he specifically says that he wants to change the regs for wire transfers and force everyone who is an alien to prove they’re there legally in order to be allowed to wire their own property anywhere they want. There. Is. Nothing. In. This. Memo. About. Taxing. The. Remittances. As. A. Way. To. Pay. For. The. Wall.

      Like

  13. @Nicki You know, this really amuses me. I discredit one claim, you come back with “Oh, the memo must be fake.

    The speculation that it is fake is just an aside. I was wrong. But my main point is that the document you cited does not make the claim you say it makes. Please quote the part you claim says they are going to confiscate remittances.

    Like

    1. When a wire transfer is blocked, for instance, if a sanctioned entity is trying to compete the transfer, the financial institution in question has an obligation to freeze the funds. And he wants to rewrite the provisions of the Patriot Act to block remittances.

      Under these laws, financial institutes, securities firms, and insurance companies are obligated to block or “freeze” property and payment of any funds transfers or transactions, and to report all blockings to OFAC within 10 days of occurrence. Any institution in non-compliance is open to adverse publicity, fines, and even criminal penalties.

      Of course, not all blockings end up in freezing of funds, but let’s put that aside….

      What does the word “impound” mean?

      Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.

      Like

  14. TO: CI
    RE: Obtuse

    I would invite you to re-read what I wrote instead on continually implying that I was or was not aware of the tangent you started down. You stated “Or do you support the use of law suits against people who—for their honestly held religious beliefs—don’t ‘go with the flow’?”. To which I replied “No, I didn’t miss those, I just didn’t know which you were referring to.”

    Apparently we’re supposed to guess specific cases you’re referring to. I’m not sure how I’m changing the subject when I referred to a specific case you cited, that was not the topic of this post to begin with.

    You debate almost like a Prog

    Nope. I don’t rely on appeals to emotion as the currency of my discourse.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: