Trump's Plan to Make Mexico Pay For the Wall

[panamaican]

1.- Actually you do, because the remittances are not going to break Mexico, the low oil prices for which Mexico depended, didnt broke Mexico at all. Because Mexico has a free floating currency, so it balances itself quite quickly, the peso went from 13 a dollar to 17.5 a dollar and it has remained there for quite a while with inflation still remaining low (under 3%).

I would assume that losing remittances (again ridiculous, there will always be ways to send money abroad, losing western union is nothing compared to the time where there werent even wired transactions to begin with), would simply jump the peso back a few more units up, that would mean less imports from China and more exports to the USA.

You also talk about the risk of straw remittances, how does that even works? how does that even gets coded into the law? You cant send money abroad if you are sending it for an illegal, how does that gets worded in the law to begin with? pretty much every illegal has tons of relatives who are legal, these guys would simply go to western union instead of the illegal with absolutely zero risk whatsoever.

You try to draw a crappy analogy with straw purchases, but those can actually be proven in a court of law.

2.- You keep claiming that the US can impose tariffs at will, no it cant. Not without leaving NAFTA, TPP and the WTO.

3.- Those guidelines work mainly on the food industry, which is just a tiny part of the US exports, if we are talking about manufacturing, there is no leg to stand on, because of once there is no manufacturing guidelines for making a shirt, and because most US based companies are already certified.

4.- Again, your whole argument is that Mexico depends entirely on remittances, which is a joke, it doesnt. And forbidding Mexicans from visiting the US would actually strengthen the peso.

So yes, the US could do whatever it wanted to Mexico, but your ideas are far-fetched and not politically feasible, at this point you could be very well arguing that the US would threaten to bomb Mexico in order to extort money, and thats not going to happen. Your view on the world is infantile at best.

And please, im the less patriotic mexican in the world and so is my dad, but if the US tried to extort money out of Mexico i would stand by the politician who doesnt caves, i lived the 1994 crisis as a teen which nearly left my family on the streets, you cant possibly speak to me about economic hardship and what can we take or not.

1. That's not my opinion. It's the opinion of people who are writing on the subject.

2. That's not my opinion. It's based on events that have already happened under the existing NAFTA, the WTO and the TPP deals. No one had to leave the deals to do this. Understand...already happened in the last 10 years. This isn't speculation, it's history.

3. No. It doesn't apply only the food industry. The examples I've read never once involved food products. You're not doing enough research.

4. That's not my opinion. The opinion of people who think the wall is a bad idea are writing that freezing remittances would cause significant harm to Mexico's economy.

See, this is the problem. You're arguing with me as if I'm giving you my random, uninformed opinion and we're debating my opinion vs. your opinion. But we're not. I'm giving the opinion of people smarter than me who've looked into it and then added my analysis and summary. You're just giving me your opinion without having bothered to do any actual research.

 

[panamaican]

If this is your opinion then what made you think the dnc could run on tearing it down? The creation of demolition jobs to replace the steady jobs for wall maintenance and surveillance would be a poor trade. You're only reinforcing my opinion that the wall is permanent if it ever gets built.

And I'm not saying a wall in progress would be shut down by future administrations (though it could be stopped in place), I'm saying the idea won't survive past his presidency because it won't even break ground by then, since we'll be sitting around waiting for the great Mexican squeeze-play to bear fruit.

Of course the wall is permanent if it's ever built, I've never disagreed with that. And if you think Trump couldn't get it through a GOP controlled Congress then we'll just disagree on that.

I don't really disagree with the point your making here about Mexico feeling the impact, I am just not seeing enough to make them capitulate and offer up $20-$30 billion. And you're discounting our own impact (more on that later). We probably aren't going to agree on this point and neither of us can claim to know for sure, but that plan seems like a real long shot.

That neither of us can claim to know for sure would indicate that it's not a long shot. That's it enough in the gray that it should be taken seriously.

Also, it's not like Mexico is building a nuke or something. What we are talking about is a segment of people that only come here illegally because there's a market for them. We are complicit. If we want to put pressure on Mexico why not try reforming immigration policy and stopping businesses from hiring illegal immigrants? Of course if we do that, there won't be any need for a big expensive wall to be planted in American citizens' back yards.


You wouldn't have to track companies down, you'd just have to implement a system and make every one comply. Non-compliance will pop them right into view and they'll be penalized. The IRS is very adept at mailing fines to businesses.

A compliance system for industries that largely operate on a cash basis? I'm admittedly skeptical. I've entire businesses change hands for 5 and 6 figures sums without any of the existing compliance systems even being aware. You're talking about a compliance system that will identify a contractor pulling into a Home Depot parking lot selecting 5 random faces, driving them to a site, paying them straight cash for a day's work, dropping them off at night. The next day 5 completely different random faces. And the next day. And then nothing for a month. And then 3 random faces and nothing for a week. The person paying the contractor isn't even there when the work is being done, they pay the contractor some fee and have no idea who does the day to day. And we're going to get a compliance system for this all over the nation? For all of the little jobs like this? The house cleaners? The gardeners? Etc.

You absolutely will have to track these guys down because they're often 1-man businesses on paper.

A barrier is a fine way to keep things in or out, in general. Thinking we need one bad enough to put forth the effort is dumb. Passing on lower hanging fruit to go after something that may never be finished is dumb. Over 40% of illegal immigrants came here legally. The flow of illegals has leveled off to net zero over the last 8 years. The bigger problem is the 11M that are already here.

I wouldn't disagree with your numbers but if you're saying the problem isn't important that's different from saying the solution itself is dumb.

But sure, if we could magically place a wall on our border without a massive undertaking, and without planting it in citizen's backyards, and without killing off species of animals, then maybe it would be better to have it then not have it. No risk, probably some reward, that sounds fine. That's not reality, though.

Don't know where you're going with that.

My calculations are based on logic. The resolve for squeezing Mexico out of wall money is going to last only as long as our elected officials support the idea, and then only if it appears to be working.

What happens if visas are cancelled, applications cost more money, and we place tariffs on trade? We encourage illegal immigration. You think wire transfer restrictions will put a significant dent in that? We'd be exacerbating our own problem. Our need for border security would increase, our citizens would be more pissed off, they'd want to know why the hell it is happening, and we'd have to say "Oh, it's our stellar negotiating tactics!" We'd create a political shit storm and we'd either end up paying for the wall ourselves or addressing the illegals another way.
Never forget, Mexicans invented the Mexican stand off.

Unless said wall actually works and then illegal immigration would decline. I've said in other posts, hurting Mexico's economy would increase illegals looking for work over here. The question is will Mexico let it go that far? I don't think so. It's cheaper and easier and better for their country to simply contribute. Because in the long run, we can more easily recover from an uptick in cheap illegal labor than Mexico can recover from a sustained hit to their economy. We're discussing our politicians and their resolve but they have politicians and limited resolve too.

It's a game of chicken. Here's the calculation:

How much damage can their economy suffer before they have to cave? How much damage can our economy suffer before we have to give up?

1) We have a $16 trillion dollar economy. Theirs is less than $2 trillion.
2) They export $58 billion more to us than we send to them.
3) Their national revenue is $290 billion. Ours is $2.8 trillion.
4) We are 78% of their export market (for ~$290 billion). They are 14% of ours.

On a pure economic sense, they can't sustain their resolve to the same extent that we can. Not only do we need them less in absolute numbers but we're over 3/4 of their export market and thr export market is ~20% of their economy. That makes us 15% of their economy. They're ~1.4% of ours.

They simply cannot sustain losing access to our markets for any prolonged period of time compared to us.

And since 50% of their population already lives in poverty, we're not talking about a population that afford to tighten it's belt much more.

Regardless of how one feels about the wall, Mexico cannot afford an economic pissing contest on this point. So as a negotiating point, we have the leverage. That is completely separate from whether or not we need the wall.

(math was rushed, might be off)

 

[Rod1]

1. That's not my opinion. It's the opinion of people who are writing on the subject.

2. That's not my opinion. It's based on events that have already happened under the existing NAFTA, the WTO and the TPP deals. No one had to leave the deals to do this. Understand...already happened in the last 10 years. This isn't speculation, it's history.

3. No. It doesn't apply only the food industry. The examples I've read never once involved food products. You're not doing enough research.

4. That's not my opinion. The opinion of people who think the wall is a bad idea are writing that freezing remittances would cause significant harm to Mexico's economy.

See, this is the problem. You're arguing with me as if I'm giving you my random, uninformed opinion and we're debating my opinion vs. your opinion. But we're not. I'm giving the opinion of people smarter than me who've looked into it and then added my analysis and summary. You're just giving me your opinion without having bothered to do any actual research.

1.- And i already stated an instance where the very same thing you mention happened, billions of dollars of US dollars income vanished with the oil prices, it shook Mexico but didnt broke it. Because Mexico is a globalized country at this point, it doesnt requires anything to meet its balance of payment, everything just fixes itself at this point.

2.- Again, minor issues concerning primarily the agroindustrial business. In the end Mexico and Canada have won most tariffs cases on the US.

3.- Not doing my research? what am i missing? steel? portland cement? industries that are virtual monopolies in Mexico and undergo monopolic practices? these have never amounted to much in terms of US exports.

4.- That opinion is short-sighted, Mexico balance of payment issues would be fixed by lower imports from China, which holds a massive trade surplus with Mexico, as the mexican peso loses value so will the cost of Chinese imports increase.

So ad hominem is your argument? I pointed out the mechanisms Mexico has for coping with the less of one source of revenue, and you have failed to point out a mechanism to stop remittances and to unilaterally withdraw from WTO, NAFTA and TPP.

The opinion you mention is on the hypothetical that Trump could somehow magically stop illegals from sending money out, or on the hypothetical that Trump manages to unify the American political spectrum and jeopardize free trade and globalized manufacturing supply chains just to get a measly wall.

The only way to galvanize support over a cause in a democracy is the perception of a foreign attack, and extortion would be seen unanimously as a foreign attack in Mexico.

 

[panamaican]

1.- And i already stated an instance where the very same thing you mention happened, billions of dollars of US dollars income vanished with the oil prices, it shook Mexico but didnt broke it. Because Mexico is a globalized country at this point, it doesnt requires anything to meet its balance of payment, everything just fixes itself at this point.

2.- Again, minor issues concerning primarily the agroindustrial business. In the end Mexico and Canada have won most tariffs cases on the US.

3.- Not doing my research? what am i missing? steel? portland cement? industries that are virtual monopolies in Mexico and undergo monopolic practices? these have never amounted to much in terms of US exports.

4.- That opinion is short-sighted, Mexico balance of payment issues would be fixed by lower imports from China, which holds a massive trade surplus with Mexico, as the mexican peso loses value so will the cost of Chinese imports increase.

So ad hominem is your argument? I pointed out the mechanisms Mexico has for coping with the less of one source of revenue, and you have failed to point out a mechanism to stop remittances and to unilaterally withdraw from WTO, NAFTA and TPP.

The opinion you mention is on the hypothetical that Trump could somehow magically stop illegals from sending money out, or on the hypothetical that Trump manages to unify the American political spectrum and jeopardize free trade and globalized manufacturing supply chains just to get a measly wall.

The only way to galvanize support over a cause in a democracy is the perception of a foreign attack, and extortion would be seen unanimously as a foreign attack in Mexico.

1. I addressed this at least 3 times. You have yet to actually respond.

2. So...it can go on without leaving the trade deals. Glad you finally understood.

3. So...not just food. Glad you're backing off that statement.

4. Short sighted by whom? China is going to step up and replace large chunks of your economy? You should double check the numbers between us and them on your economy.

And that wasn't an ad hominin attack. I was specifically addressing the lack of research in your position, not you individually.

And the effect wouldn't stop just illegal remittances. Per research, this was done previously. The result was that many institutions simply stopped doing transfers to the countries in question, both legal and illegal. Again, not speculation. History from the last 15 years.

And he wouldn't have to unify the political spectrum. He would only need 50% of Congress. Per research, the GOP already provides those numbers. He could get it through Congress without a single Democrat's support.

And he wouldn't be jeopardizing free trade or globalized manufacturing. Mexico is a very small part of the U.S. economy. Less than 2%. We could lose your entire export market and still have 98% of what we've got now. And you could keep trading with everyone else, sure you'd be out 15% of your market but what's 15%?

 

[sickc0d3r]

Of course the wall is permanent if it's ever built, I've never disagreed with that. And if you think Trump couldn't get it through a GOP controlled Congress then we'll just disagree on that.

If he's waiting for the Mexicans to fold first it won't even get started. If he wants to build the wall first and then make them pay he might get it through congress, but the first 3 days of his plan doesn't make any sense in that case.
Makes more sense to say that we'd have them pay over time by building it and then just raising their visa fees.

That neither of us can claim to know for sure would indicate that it's not a long shot. That's it enough in the gray that it should be taken seriously.

No, it means it is a gamble that is probably not worth taking.

A compliance system for industries that largely operate on a cash basis? I'm admittedly skeptical. I've entire businesses change hands for 5 and 6 figures sums without any of the existing compliance systems even being aware. You're talking about a compliance system that will identify a contractor pulling into a Home Depot parking lot selecting 5 random faces, driving them to a site, paying them straight cash for a day's work, dropping them off at night. The next day 5 completely different random faces. And the next day. And then nothing for a month. And then 3 random faces and nothing for a week. The person paying the contractor isn't even there when the work is being done, they pay the contractor some fee and have no idea who does the day to day. And we're going to get a compliance system for this all over the nation? For all of the little jobs like this? The house cleaners? The gardeners? Etc.

You absolutely will have to track these guys down because they're often 1-man businesses on paper.

Who's hiring most of these ditch digging contractors and their illegal workers? They provide a lot of day labor for legitimate businesses. I don't have a detailed plan to offer, but I'm sure it starts by holding legitimate businesses accountable with stiff penalties. More reported cases, leading to actual enforcement instead of looking the other way as we do now, and more legitimate companies turning away shady contractors all would be fine start.

I wouldn't disagree with your numbers but if you're saying the problem isn't important that's different from saying the solution itself is dumb.

Don't know where you're going with that.

Again, it's not that a wall can't help keep people in or out, it is that it's not worth the undertaking. If it were easy, and if there were a situation of real urgency, I'd probably be fine with it.

Unless said wall actually works and then illegal immigration would decline. I've said in other posts, hurting Mexico's economy would increase illegals looking for work over here. The question is will Mexico let it go that far? I don't think so. It's cheaper and easier and better for their country to simply contribute. Because in the long run, we can more easily recover from an uptick in cheap illegal labor than Mexico can recover from a sustained hit to their economy. We're discussing our politicians and their resolve but they have politicians and limited resolve too.

It's a game of chicken. Here's the calculation:

How much damage can their economy suffer before they have to cave? How much damage can our economy suffer before we have to give up?

1) We have a $16 trillion dollar economy. Theirs is less than $2 trillion.
2) They export $58 billion more to us than we send to them.
3) Their national revenue is $290 billion. Ours is $2.8 trillion.
4) We are 78% of their export market (for ~$290 billion). They are 14% of ours.

On a pure economic sense, they can't sustain their resolve to the same extent that we can. Not only do we need them less in absolute numbers but we're over 3/4 of their export market and thr export market is ~20% of their economy. That makes us 15% of their economy. They're ~1.4% of ours.

They simply cannot sustain losing access to our markets for any prolonged period of time compared to us.

And since 50% of their population already lives in poverty, we're not talking about a population that afford to tighten it's belt much more.

Regardless of how one feels about the wall, Mexico cannot afford an economic pissing contest on this point. So as a negotiating point, we have the leverage. That is completely separate from whether or not we need the wall.

These are all valid points, but there is a major point you're missing in your investigation of raw numbers. A trade war with Mexico would easily cost us billions, too. Not only in tariffs they'd levy, but we'd see a loss of revenue from the people that come here to work, both legally and illegally. Those people spend money just like everyone else, and losing their demand hurts real businesses.

So, even though we can afford to play this game more easily than they can, how much does the wall actually end up costing? Maybe $30 Billion to build and another $30 Billion at least to blackmail our neighbors? Are we going to change the number they owe us to $60 Billion, or just get 5 or 10 and end up paying more than we would have if we just paid for it ourselves and left Mexico out of it?

It's all just crazy talk.

 

[Rod1]

1. I addressed this at least 3 times. You have yet to actually respond.

2. So...it can go on without leaving the trade deals. Glad you finally understood.

3. So...not just food. Glad you're backing off that statement.

4. Short sighted by whom? China is going to step up and replace large chunks of your economy? You should double check the numbers between us and them on your economy.

And that wasn't an ad hominin attack. I was specifically addressing the lack of research in your position, not you individually.

And the effect wouldn't stop just illegal remittances. Per research, this was done previously. The result was that many institutions simply stopped doing transfers to the countries in question, both legal and illegal. Again, not speculation. History from the last 15 years.

And he wouldn't have to unify the political spectrum. He would only need 50% of Congress. Per research, the GOP already provides those numbers. He could get it through Congress without a single Democrat's support.

And he wouldn't be jeopardizing free trade or globalized manufacturing. Mexico is a very small part of the U.S. economy. Less than 2%. We could lose your entire export market and still have 98% of what we've got now. And you could keep trading with everyone else, sure you'd be out 15% of your market but what's 15%?

1.- You claim that an hypothetical loss of remittances would break Mexico, i addressed why it wouldnt, Mexico has had worse balance of payments issues before and it didnt broke the country, the only thing that would break the country are sanctions. But if you are threatening with sanctions you may as well threaten with military action, remmitances account for 2% of the GDP, its a big amount indeed, but not economy breaking one.

2.- Tariffs are not unilaterally implemented. And the reason why they take so long to be resolved is because there is a legitimate excuse to apply said tariffs, excuses that require investigation. Broad tariffs are not.

3.- We are talking about unilateral unfounded tariffs, the tariffs against the steel and cement industry were not unilateral or unfounded these companies engage in unfair practices.

4.- No, the argument is that the balance of payment is going to fix itself, right now the trade surplus with the US funds a trade deficit with China.

5.- What lack of research? your points are fuzzy and unrealistic at best and require a lot of undefined hypotheticals you are not willing to lay down.

You go from loss of remittances, to loss of trade, to loss of tourism, and when attacked on one you jump to the other, the fact remains that you have yet to lay a simple mechanism on how to stop anything already happening from the perspective of the presidency alone.

You claim that Trump is going to magically galvanize the US political will into risking business worth hundreds of billions of dollars over a simple wall. The GOP? really the big business GOP is going to say FU to all American corporations that have investments and manufacture supply chains in Mexico?

You are also claiming that the mexican politicians will cave independently of political backlash, because they care so much about the economy, while the American people will be willing to take an economic hit worth hundreds of billions because they will be united on their desire to make Mexico pay.

Im willing to account bet that this wall wont happen, are you?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Garbage men and bus drivers are government employees, they get paid more because they are on government dime.

That being said, they are not being paid less, they are being paid quite well for the kind of job they are doing.

You said Americans wouldn't pick produce for a living because they think it would be degrading. I've given examples of possibly the two least respected careers, neither of which has a hard time being filled by Americans. The fact that the government employs most garbage men and bus drivers is irrelevant. The point is that people will not turn down work just because it's perceived as unflattering; they just need to be compensated well enough.

You sound clueless about blue collar Americans' work ethic.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Im willing to account bet that this wall wont happen, are you?

Oh Snap , shhhh it just got real. ...

 

[Rod1]

You said Americans wouldn't pick produce for a living because they think it would be degrading. I've given examples of possibly the two least respected careers, neither of which has a hard time being filled by Americans. The fact that the government employs most garbage men and bus drivers is irrelevant. The point is that people will not turn down work just because it's perceived as unflattering; they just need to be compensated well enough.

You sound clueless about blue collar Americans' work ethic.

No, i said they were unmotivated by the work and payment.

And yes, being government employee has absolutely everything to do with the fact that these professions are sought after, because government benefits are great for the type of work it is.

If you think that producers will be paying 30-50 dollars an hour for picking fruit, you are being dellusional. And even if they do, that simply means another industry is going to have labour issues.

No, im not clueless about american blue collar ethics, im claiming that american blue collar workers for the most part are a dying breed.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Where am I appealing to the authority of Trump? And if I am would you rather have me appeal to the authority of Cruz or Hillary?

I'm noticing a pattern with you Pain...instead of addressing a claim, position, or topic on substance you just discredit the person making the claim or holding the position.

"I, and Donald Trump, say we should do both."
​

As if since Donald said it, it's a good idea.... It's a waste of $20b. Read this article and you'll see that we can end illegal immigration a lot lot cheaper.


The 100 employers who filed the most no-match W-2s and the 100 employers who the highest percentage of no-match W-2s together filed 2,477,546 no-match W-2s over three years. The auditors determined that 20 percent of the Social Security Numbers used on these W-2s were not real Social Security Numbers. In fact, 42,164 of the W-2s had Social Security Numbers that were all zeros. 358 were filed with 666 as the first three digits.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ig-...top-illegals-misusing-social-security-numbers

And others have pointed out that it still cuts down on the amount being sent back. I suppose we should outlaw anything if someone can potentially get around it.

Isn't that (along with taxes) the logic for legalizing pot?

The bigger point is that I blew away Trumps master plan in 3 minutes, but somehow I'm supposed to think that Mexico and illegals wont figure that out on their own?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

What box are they checking on the I-9. Things are shifting quickly to eVerify and forged documents aren't going to cut it anymore. I'm not saying there won't be fraud in the future, but it will get much tougher.

Last I checked only 15 states use e-verify and only 3 mandatory it for all employees. Most just mandate it for state jobs.


Edit: 4 states mandatory it for all jobs.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

To be fair, Hillary's supporters started the birther movement back in 2008 when Obama was schlonging her.

A point I bring up often.

Btw- Wasn't Trump a democrat when all that started in '08?

 

[therealdope]

Last I checked only 15 states use e-verify and only 3 mandatory it for all employees. Most just mandate it for state jobs.

I don't know where it is mandatory but E-Verify is available to all employers. We use it and don't have to worry about people providing fraudulent evidence of eligibility to work.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I don't know where it is mandatory but E-Verify is available to all employers. We use it and don't have to worry about people providing fraudulent evidence of eligibility to work.

We use it as well, but the company doesn't have to use it. As for companies that want to use I9 here's the list: So a phony birth certificate ($200) and drivers license or school id.

 

[Space]

A point I bring up often.

Btw- Wasn't Trump a democrat when all that started in '08?

Yes, but he's jumped around; safe to say that he's an independent, not D or R.

 

[TheComebackKid]

"I, and Donald Trump, say we should do both."
​

As if since Donald said it, it's a good idea....

No, the poster I responded to suggested that Trump's wall was a waste and all you needed to do was crack down on employers. I was pointing out that Trump's also includes cracking down on employers.

It's a waste of $20b. Read this article and you'll see that we can end illegal immigration a lot lot cheaper.

I've already addressed this. You can significantly cut down on illegal immigration by implementing policies that take the jobs away. But I made the point, that you haven't responded to, that those policies could be easily reversed in the future by politicians pandering to hispanics and donors. A wall...not so much.

Also, even if you took away the jobs illegals still have a major drug market to work within this country. And cracking down on employers does nothing to stop the flow of narcotics and potentially terrorists from easily crossing the border. A wall would make it much tougher.

Also...that $20B will most likely be spent on some bullshit anyway so might as well spend it on securing the border and providing some jobs to Americans.

The bigger point is that I blew away Trumps master plan in 3 minutes, but somehow I'm supposed to think that Mexico and illegals wont figure that out on their own?

Lol. You haven't blown away anything. All you have done is offer petty objections and complaints because you're upset about how Mr. Booger Eater was treated for trying to steal the election. But anytime you want to jump off the Do Nothing Team and come on home we have a spot for ya.

And also...I'm noticing that when people offer rebuttals to your petty objections you never defend them. You just pretend you won. I'm surprised you haven't announced a VP yet.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Lol. You haven't blown away anything. All you have done is offer petty objections and complaints because you're upset about how Mr. Booger Eater was treated for trying to steal the election. But anytime you want to jump off the Do Nothing Team and come on home we have a spot for ya.

And also...I'm noticing that when people offer rebuttals to your petty objections you never defend them. You just pretend you won. I'm surprised you haven't announced a VP yet.

I told you why this plan to get Mexico to pay wouldn't work. If you're sure that I'm wrong then we can sig. bet; otherwise you're simply claiming it's a good plan because Trump came up with it and ignoring the reasons stated.






My "petty objection" is to confiscating land and building an expensive wall that wont solve the problem that you're looking at. You mentioned drugs, but you neglect the vast amount of drugs that flowed through Miami in the 90's and that we've already found 5 tunnels running from Mexico to Cali in the past couple of years. Do you know why we are finding them now? It's because it is getting increasingly harder to cross the border undetected.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Here is Trump's plan to make Mexico pay for the wall from his website....



I'm always hearing about how Trump never offers details...this seems pretty detailed to me. What does the war room think...would any of this work?

Is Trump doing this stuff?