Who's gonna pay for that wall? Trump, Tacos, and The Patriot Act
Earlier this week, presidential candidate Donald Trump visited Enrique Peña Nieto, the President of Mexico, to discuss, among other things, a proposed controversial wall along the southern border separating our two countries. The visit took many by surprise, including Americans.
by IoSonoUnaFotoCamera CC2.0
Immediately following the Mexico visit, Trump indicated that no discussion about who would pay for the wall was discussed. He promptly traveled to Arizona, where he gave a policy speech on his immigation plan, which included language about the wall which seemed more aggressive in tone to the meeting he had with Nieto. The Mexican President argued that the first thing he told Trump in their meeting was that Mexico would not pay for the wall, while Trump denied having spoken to regarding this.
The wall is expected to cost between $8 billion to $12 billion, rising up to 50 feet high. Natural barriers, such as the Rio Grande River, may prevent the creation of a wall along the nearly 2,000 mile border span. Currently, there are 650 miles of fencing, which is also watched by border patrol. Trump is proposing to have Mexico pay $5-10 billion to the United States for the proposed wall construction.
by ikeaboi81 CC2.0
But how will he convince them, when the Mexican President has already said no?
The answer is in black and white on Trump's website, and it is chilling. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/pay-for-the-wall
Trump intends to activate provision #326 of the morally bankrupt Patriot Act, the "Know Your Customer" provision. More specifically, Trump intends to change Section 31 CFR 130.120-121 of the provision to include money transfer companies like Western Union as financial institutions, and redefine "account" to include money transfer wires. Add to this a requirement of documentation for lawful presence in the United States. Over $24 billion in remittances move from the U.S. to Mexico every year, and it is assumed (but no statistics can verify) that a large portion of this amount comes from undocumented workers.
by allylaurente CC2.0
Trump indicates that the very reasoning for redefining wire services is specifically to negotiate and wrangle the $5-$10 billion from Mexico. If the ransom money is met, then Western Union is spared, and wire transfers will not be changed. Using the Patriot Act in this manner is a travesty and not based on any true threat caused by terrorism. It is a bit disconcerting that Trump is willing to change the very nature of an American service to coerce another country into paying an American infrastructure bill.
Additionally, one of the defining benefits of a wire transfer such as Western Union is that it allows customers to transfer or receive money without an account at any financial institution. It is one of the few traditional money services that can be essentially used anonymously. The proposed change would not just affect illegal aliens, but all customers as they will need to "show their papers" to send money.
by fstorr CC2.0
But there is perhaps a greater answer to this pernicious rule change. If Trump wins the election, Nieto should begin investing in blockchain companies such as Bitcoin, Litecoin or even Steem-Backed Dollars in order to provide an alternate to wire transfers for the Mexican people. As supposedly conservative politicians like Donald Trump propose far-reaching changes to longstanding anonymous financial services, cryptocurrency will continue to rise in adoption as libertarians, anarchocryptists... and even Mexicans.... reject the increase of power and control over our ability to circulate our money regardless of our nationalities. This will send a message that centralized financial institutions can no longer be used to ransom money out of unsuspecting people -- or governments.