- Politics and Social Issues»
- United States Politics
Who's Gonna Pay For It?
Trump’s gonna build the wall. This image says it all.
Trump proposes details of plan to build wall. Does it have a shot in hell?
“You better believe it,” GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump tells doubters of his plan to make Mexico pay for the wall on our shared border. The New York billionaire has jolted crowds across the country with his populist message of American nationalism, feeding the flames of the immigration debate in, some would say, a dangerous way. The logistics of Mr. Trump’s lofty goals regarding border security and the seriousness of his campaign overall have been difficult to comprehend.
Donald Trump has changed the game during the 2016 Republican primary, proposing a near 2,000 mile long wall in the process. And who's gonna pay for it? Mexico!
The Donald has been called out by media types many times to reveal the details of his ambitious plan to secure our borders. He has since revealed possible particulars. His desire to build a wall is not a metaphor for his hard-stance immigration policy, it appears. He wants to build a literal barrier between our two countries.
Mexico will pay for the wall after Trump cuts of remittance payments to Mexico. These are payments that legal and illegal immigrants in America send back to their families south of the border. By forcing Mexico to lose up to $20 billion per year, their government would be forced to pay for the wall to save their fragile economy. Trump’s strategy to make Mexico foot the bill involves a jiggering of the Patriot Act that regulates some of these payments. Some doubt the legality of it all. Others believe the Republican frontrunner has a shot. He has left other possible avenues open however, such as restricting visas and reducing trade and other economic pressures.
Trump, if elected, could also declare a state of emergency because the southern border with Mexico is not secure.
This excessive use of government and executive power is scary for any sane individual. Apparently $25 billion was sent home by Mexicans living abroad in 2015, Donald Trump said that “the majority of that comes from illegal aliens.”
If illegal immigrants continue to commit crimes in the U.S., like when a 33 year old previously deported Mexican citizen killed a volunteer firefighter, his 22 month old, and 4 year old children outside of Dallas, TX recently, then President Trump could take matters into his own hands.
Trump would likely be stopped by the courts, as Barack Obama was when tried to extend deportation relief to millions of illegal children in the country at the end of 2014 under DACA (Deferred Action for Children Arrivals) and when he tried to stop climate change singlehandedly throught an EPA-issued regulation regarding power plants. This last February, the lower courts temporarily halted the administration’s effort to combat global warming by regulating emissions from coal-fired power plants, while the messy DACA issue is poised to be decided by the Supreme Court before the big election this November.
Americans are not used to having its President possess so much power, but many are now coming around to the idea of a king-like executive. In Mexico, government power achieved through political corruption, on the other hand, is just a fact of life.
Still, the United States is Mexico’s biggest trading partner, with over $1 billion in bilateral trade each day, and millions of Mexicans live north of the border. With Trump’s rise in the political arena, a wave of nationalist and pro-border sentiment has risen with him. Now, the Mexican government is attempting to salvage what standing it still has in the world, moving to highlight its positive contributions to its North American neighbor. But it is likely too late for the Mexican people to ever have faith in their government to do the right thing as Americans somehow believe, despite the fact that government includes millions of imperfect human beings like you and me. Corruption is inherent in Mexican governments, from the local governments of towns near the border, to the Federales in Mexico City. The cartels are in charge, not the federal government. Reality south of the border is much harsher than it is here. The mainstream media and other world leaders defend diversity and open borders as endlessly beneficial. Little do they know that Europeans are building walls faster than they can to preserve their cultures and to keep its citizens safe.
Safety is always a primary concern for the American voter. Trump appears to be a strong and competent leader who will do what he can to keep the country safe. How much he has actually thought about those things is another question for another day. A similarly valid concern, this time for the Democrats, is how to take on big banks without devastating our economy even further. Unfortunately, Bernie Sanders’ plan, or lack thereof, has done little to inspire confidence among the left-leaning members of the electorate.
“If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist,” Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders proclaims during just about every one of his speeches. The Senator from Vermont knows what issues gets the Democratic base going and he touches on them continuously. He wants to break up the big banks. Give all Americans “free” college and forgive their student loan debt. He is despised by our choice to go to war in Iraq, which he never lets Hillary Clinton forget she voted for. He also illuminates how much the deck is stacked for those at the top and how unequal our society is. So how would he fix that and turn us into the next Soviet Union (a place he honeymooned at...while it was still the Soviet Union)? Turns out he has not given it all that much thought.
Dan Pfeifer, former aide to President Obama, called the transcript of a recent interview with the New York Daily News, “almost as damning as Trump’s with WaPo.” The Presidential candidate was light on specifics during the interview on the first of April, not answering some questions, claiming to need to do more digging on big topics such as trade, fighting ISIS, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and even his campaign's central promise to break up banks deemed "too big to fail".
A recent Vice News article by Liz Fields and Sarah Mimms pinpoints the errors in Mr. Sanders’ ideas that lack a means of implementation. In the end, “Sanders has big ideas, but is short on specifics as to how he would accomplish them.” Sounds eerily similar to someone promising hope and change circa 2008. Sanders did not have a ready answer for how he would break up the big banks, something he harps on a daily basis. He does not even seem to know who would have it in their power to do something like that. Initially he said the Fed has it within their power, but then said maybe the administration has it. And while Sanders is no legal scholar, he has no basis for jailing Wall Street executives for their involvement in the financial crisis, unaware of any laws or statutes they had broken that could be used to indict them. Confounding that he has not studied up on this issue more since it remains so central to his campaign.
The more he attempted to weed into specifics, the more he got tied up in not knowing exactly how or who would implement his lofty goals. The longer the interview went on, “the more it became clear that the candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination doesn’t know much beyond his standard stump speech about breaking up the banks and how he had the good judgment to vote against the Iraq War in 2002”, Jonathan Capehart posits in a recent Washington Post article. While Donald Trump is hit with constant scrutiny on his plans for the country, Sanders is rarely nailed down on specifics for his socialist utopia. “Considering this is the core of his campaign message, Sanders should know...He should have been able to lecture his interrogators into a stupor with his detailed knowledge. Instead, Sanders sounded slightly better than a college student caught off-guard by a surprise test in his best class just before finals.” Though this mishap by the challenger to the Clinton machine will likely be forgotten soon, it is interesting to note his ill preparedness at answering logistical questions central to his campaign.
The fact that the Senator from Vermont has a weak spot in terms of foreign policy and is more focused on domestic issues is no big secret. Further, problems facing President Obama outside our borders such as ISIS/radical Islamic terrorism and Russia flying jets 30 feet away from our warships, are not simple tasks to check off the list. But for him to be railing against millionaires and billionaires throughout his time in the Senate and on the national stage over the past year during his rise in the Presidential race and to have not taken the time to detail the implementation of any of his big bank breaking / executive jailing plans proves how he is not serious in becoming President of the United States.
Maybe Trump was a similarly unserious candidate? Rumors are that he never thought he could actually win the Republican nomination, running to only further his brand and emphasize important issues such as immigration, trade, and national security. The billionaire from New York has only recently, as mentioned above, come out with specifics regarding his Mexican-funded wall. Though light on specifics as well, Trump has at least thought about how his ideas for “Making America Great Again” could be implemented.
Has Sanders thought about it? Sure. Does he think it’s possible? Probably not, or he would have dug just a little deeper. Both Trump and Sanders have been thorns in the sides of entrenched establishments, but both of those thorns can easily be pinched out and forgotten if neither materialize their support into a major party nomination.
Who is better prepared? That is a near impossible question to ask when not exactly sure of a candidate's’ motives and desires. But if one had to pick, Trump, with his success in business would likely steer us out of a recession better and keep us safer than the Democratic Socialist.
Sanders is not ready as he has only been using his candidacy as a megaphone for his big government policies. He has no desire, willpower, or even expertise to enact his vision for America from D.C.
Trump or Sanders don’t vibe with you? How ‘bout Hillary? Texas Senator Ted Cruz? House Speaker Paul Ryan is steering clear. Not sure where to turn? … Bring on small government and liberty with Gary Johnson!