Nearly $25 billion flows into Mexico every year from foreign countries. Trump falsely claims that this money is all from the U.S, and all from illegal aliens. It's a crucial part of Mexico's economy, and they have a strong incentive to have that continue.
In the memo, Trump said he would threaten to change a rule under the USA
Patriot Act antiterrorism law to cut off a portion of the funds sent to
Mexico through money transfers, commonly known as remittances. The
threat would be withdrawn if Mexico made “a one-time payment of $5-10
billion” to pay for the border wall, he wrote.
This is a really stupid idea, presented in an extremely simplistic way. Trump proposes to "impound all remittance payments from illegal wages". How do you do that? How do you determine which wages are illegal? If the government knew that someone was working here illegally, they would deport them. Not coincidentally, those "illegal wages" would no longer be earned, and Mexico would not get any further "remittances" anyway.
This is like proposing a plan that bans all heroin dealers from buying a new car. If you already know someone is a heroin dealer, they'll be jailed and they won't need a new car. It's not going to induce people to stop dealing heroin.
But suppose that this plan were to work. Mexico pays for the wall. Illegal immigration is halted. Mexico loses all of these "remittances" anyway, because nobody is working illegally to send money back to Mexico. And, if illegal immigration isn't halted, then why build the wall? Even dumber, Trump promises to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. There goes the "remittances"!
There's no way that this would make any financial sense for Mexico, if Trump's plan worked flawlessly.
On a practical level, you can't stop all payments across the border. What about American retirees living in Mexico? What about American businesses operating in Mexico? What about someone's kid who gets robbed in Tijuana and needs plane fare home?
To explain how he would have the standing to pursue his aggressive
strategy, Trump begins by citing a provision in the Code of Federal
Regulations that sets the standards for financial institutions in
identifying their customers.
Okay, so now we're talking about requiring anyone wanting to get a money order or wire transfer to show a passport. A Social Security card isn't good enough, because most illegal aliens have those (albeit falsified). How many documented citizens will be willing to take the risk for a cousin or other family member? Probably a lot. Others will do it for profit.
But money crosses borders even easier than drugs. This opens up a huge market for organised crime. We can pretty much assume that Mexico won't co-operate in the investigation of money transfers. An individual can carry up to $10k in cash across the border -- no questions asked. Put a "bank" on the Mexican side of the border and American citizens can walk the money across, where it is then distributed exactly as if it were a money order. Americans can set up phony "businesses" in Mexico and transfer money from their American "owners". American "tourists" can make "purchases" of nothing at all. All of this would be done for a cut of the money, in the same way that banks deal with legitimate money orders.
So now we're talking about employing an army of forensic accountants, plus expensive prosecutions and investigations. And the big pay-off would be swiping some poor person's meagre earnings. Mexico has nothing to lose either way. Major money laundering operations would be set up to facilitate money transfers. Bribes would be paid. These operations would soon encompass other illegal activities, and Mexico would have a strong incentive to look the other way.
Throughout all of this, Trump's Administration would spend enormous sums in order to coerce Mexico to pay only slightly more. And the U.S. would be forced to continue doing it, year after year. The wall wouldn't be paid for, so we'd have all of those expenses, too. And the tightening of money transfers would encourage more illegal immigration.
Meanwhile, law-abiding Americans and businesses would pay more for financial services and be subject to absurd scrutiny. I don't see this as being very popular.
The Trump campaign has finally hired a campaign manager...in early August! Mike Lukach has stepped up to become the sacrificial lamb and future scapegoat for Trump's overwhelming loss here. Lukach isn't even from Minnesota. He's an itinerant campaign monkey that moves wherever the grift is good -- the perfect symbol of his chosen candidate.
The MNGOP has been surprisingly hesitant to embrace Trump. Usually, going "all in" on a strident loser would be something that the MNGOP would do in a heartbeat. Tom Emmer is the only elected Republican making a show of endorsing Trump. Emmer blew a tight race for Governor several years ago, and bankrupted the MN GOP with the recount costs. Now he holds the Sixth District, an R+6 gig that anyone besides Bachmann can hold cheaply and perpetually. Supporting Trump won't cost him in the Sixth, but it really limits his future hopes for U.S. Senate or Governor. Emmer, whether he likes it or not, will be tied to everything Trumpian in a state-wide election. I'm really hoping that Lukach can get Emmer on record with several juicy pro-Trump statements.
From the last election in 2014, and the current campaign, it's become painfully obvious that the MNGOP sees its future as the Party of rural MN. In 2014, the Party ran almost exclusively on an urban vs. rural rhetoric. They promised to de-fund the cities and spend vast amounts on roads in rural Minnesota. When all was said and done, they ended up with pretty much the same amount spent on rural roads as before their election. And the urban areas weren't de-funded, because about 60% of the State's voters live in the metro area.
This is just the latest incarnation of a MNGOP that seems to be constantly hitting the "reset' button and re-inventing itself.
Remember, in 2010 the MNGOP was all about evangelical causes and Tea Party craziness. Tim Pawlenty announced his support of crazy 10th Amendment 'solutions'. They put a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot to ban same-sex marriage. And it all collapsed.
Next, the MNGOP was all about "libertarian" causes. Never mind all of that "government pushing Christianity down your throat" stuff that they screamed two years earlier. Now, it was all about "liberty". As always, "liberty" to conservatives means, "Leave me the hell alone, and come down hard on that other guy that's different from me". Libertarian Kurt Bills lost in a landslide (65/31) to Democrat Amy Klobuchar in the 2012 election. I should note that PPP polled the race as 62/32 just before the election. Pretty damn close.
Then, in 2014, the Party hit the "reset" button again. Never mind all of that Libertarian nonsense. They never really believed that, anyway. They ran a faceless McFadden against Al Franken, with nothing other than "everybody hates Democrats, right?" as a reason to vote for McFadden. Franken won 53/43 -- not even close. McFadden was a businessman who had never held public office. The only "Tea Party" message in his campaign was an opposition to "Obamacare" - mentioned more as an afterthought than anything. Though McFadden cited God as his campaign manager, he pushed none of the evangelical agenda.
Every Republican was absolutely sure that McFadden would win. They had abandoned the craziness. They couldn't lose. Not a single poll showed McFadden winning, but that just proved that the polls were all biased. The local Fox affiliate ran an exit poll just after polls closed showing McFadden winning, and said it was "hardly surprising". Yet, he lost by ten points in the real world.
Pretty much nobody with brains thought that Dayton would lose re-election in 2014. There wasn't a single poll showing that -- even Rasmussen. Yet, virtually every Republican in Minnesota believed that Jeff Johnson would win, because Dayton was hated...by Republicans. Johnson ran an entirely "base-oriented" campaign. He lost 50/45. That rural base just isn't big enough.
That rural base was big enough to win the MNGOP a bare majority in the MN House: 72 seats out of 68 needed. This was based on promises that weren't kept once in office.
Minnesota's rural population has remained stagnant while the urban has grown. Three rural counties are actually losing population.
As you can see, the MNGOP's big bet on northern Minnesota is a big gamble. Five counties are predicted to lose population. The one growing county is growing because of urban people moving to it. The metro area is gaining population at 2-3 times the rate of most of out-state Minnesota. The Census in 2020 will prompt re-districting to move those blue rural voters into surrounding Districts.
Of course, by 2020, the MNGOP will have done yet another about-face. Whatever that make-over will look like, it's certain that they will claim that it's what they always stood for.
The MNGOP is trying desperately to lock out-state Minnesota into a hopeless conflict with urban Minnesota. And, when that fails, they will move on to greener pastures and leave rural Minnesota to fend for itself -- much as they did with the evangelicals, libertarians, and Tea Party supporters.
The rural MN vote isn't really based on economics or policy issues. It's about a deep fear of their 'way of life' changing. But the MNGOP can't prevent that, even if it were real. They can bolster resentment of the urban areas, but they can't stop urban growth and they can't lock the world into the 1950's forever.
The extent that Trump succeeds in rural Minnesota will be the extent that rural Minnesota becomes electorally irrelevant. Crazy blow-hards will reign in those districts, but lose in the Legislature. State-wide campaigns will ignore those voters as hopeless. Even the MNGOP won't try to appeal to Trump voters after this election. They're too small, too scattered, and too irrational to make the effort worthwhile.
I don't see rural Minnesota joining the "bubble" alternate reality that the Republicans exist in. Nobody wants to live their life perpetually furious and frightened. Being a Republican today, however, requires being "all in". There are no "edges".
