Victor Davis Hanson, in an essay on Trump's "sloppy populism" offers this terrific idea....

QuoteLatin Americans and Mexican citizens currently send home in aggregate about $70 to $80 billion per year in remittances. It would be both lawful and feasible to require all foreign nationals who do not have proof of legal residency in the United States to pay a 10 percent surcharge on any money sent outside of the United States. That fee alone might eventually earn sufficient funds to pay for the wall—and it would pass on the costs to those whose illegality prompted the need for its construction in the first place.

http://www.hoover.org/research/trumps-sloppy-populism

This was my idea. Charge each transaction sending money out of the US to certain Latin American countries a hefty " Surcharge", actually a tax. Of course it will cause more of them to go underground and send money thru the back market but many will still have to use Western Union and other established transfer organizations.

BTW, western Union et al already charge a fee for their services which includes a "tax" of sorts.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on March 30, 2016, 05:19:11 PM
This was my idea. Charge each transaction sending money out of the US to certain Latin American countries a hefty " Surcharge", actually a tax. Of course it will cause more of them to go underground and send money thru the back market but many will still have to use Western Union and other established transfer organizations.

BTW, western Union et al already charge a fee for their services which includes a "tax" of sorts.

Payday loans and check-cashing joints also should be included, with fines huge enough to get those sleazebags' attention. Anything over $1,000 gets logged, compiled, and aggregates TOO high within a certain timespan would indicate possibility of those underground avenues. At that point the tax people come calling.

It's a great move if it happens.

I'm also in favor of confiscating any money the squatters are bringing in.  It immediately belongs to the States.

The IRS can already seize currency, no questions asked, to our own citizens.

10%? I'd take it all. After all, the justice system doesn't allow you to keep any of the proceeds of criminal activity. Since crossing the border is an illegal action, and they could never have earned anything here, without doing so; anything they've earned here is the proceeds of a criminal act. Hell they take money from Americans, under asset forfeiture; simply confiscate any cash sent or attempted to carry into Mexico. Besides if it became known that illegals returning to Mexico might be carrying money, they probably couldn't survive the trip anyway. Being unable to send anything back or carry anything back; they'll most likely stop coming. Besides this, they should seize any children born of illegals, in the US, and put them up for adoption

I agree with MG. In the law you are not supposed to be able to benefit from criminal activity. We should seize every asset they have, if we find them in our nation illegally.

 As long as people will hire illegals, illegals will come over here to work. As long as people can continue to make money by hiring illegals, they will continue to do so. The day people who hire illegals go to jail and pay a stiff fine, our illegal problem will be well on its way to being solved. We do not need to spend millions on a wall, we do not need to take money away from them, just enforce the laws we have. Since we do not enforce our laws I have to wonder if our government even sees illegals as a problem.

Quote from: s3779m on March 31, 2016, 01:02:23 PM
As long as people will hire illegals, illegals will come over here to work. As long as people can continue to make money by hiring illegals, they will continue to do so. The day people who hire illegals go to jail and pay a stiff fine, our illegal problem will be well on its way to being solved. We do not need to spend millions on a wall, we do not need to take money away from them, just enforce the laws we have. Since we do not enforce our laws I have to wonder if our government even sees illegals as a problem.

The problem with that is, where the illegals work and how they are paid. If they are paid in cash and the business owner has a few legals among the many illegals, he can hide the money earned by, and paid out to, the illegals. Catching people would require informants, and rewards. not to mention random periodic inspections. One thing they could do, is to start punishing sanctuary cities, and raid those spots where day workers gather

Quote from: mdgiles on March 31, 2016, 01:28:38 PM
The problem with that is, where the illegals work and how they are paid. If they are paid in cash and the business owner has a few legals among the many illegals, he can hide the money earned by, and paid out to, the illegals. Catching people would require informants, and rewards. not to mention random periodic inspections. One thing they could do, is to start punishing sanctuary cities, and raid those spots where day workers gather

I agree it would be hard to catch those who hire illegals, but no harder than building a wall or asking hundreds of western union outlets to become an expert on fake documents. However, this avenue will be the last for our government to try. But, can you imagine the panic business owners would have when the first business owner would go to jail? or have to pay a fine?

Quote from: mdgiles on March 31, 2016, 12:02:47 PM
Besides this, they should seize any children born of illegals, in the US, and put them up for adoption

Return to Mexico and let THEIR welfare system support that child. Leaving them here is on us.

I'm not OK with seizing children, unless it is to deport the entire family. (Elian Gonzalez wasn't exactly a model of where I'm thinking but generally-so.) Just want to offer the thought that seizing someone and KEEPING THEM HERE (say by offering them for adoption) is scarcely any different than going say to Africa and returning with slaves. One's just closer.

Quote from: quiller on March 31, 2016, 04:55:08 PM
Return to Mexico and let THEIR welfare system support that child. Leaving them here is on us.

I'm not OK with seizing children, unless it is to deport the entire family. (Elian Gonzalez wasn't exactly a model of where I'm thinking but generally-so.) Just want to offer the thought that seizing someone and KEEPING THEM HERE (say by offering them for adoption) is scarcely any different than going say to Africa and returning with slaves. One's just closer.

Would any mother come to the US if it meant the chance of having her new born taken from her?

Quote from: mdgiles on March 31, 2016, 06:50:50 PM
Would any mother come to the US if it meant the chance of having her new born taken from her?

"Chance" is an expanded version of "if" (or, probably more accurately, "maybe")when it comes to hope for a better life. My honest answer? I think many would try, hoping to beat those odds.

My version doesn't just target illegals....it targets everybody who is sending money to these source countries of the illegals, primarily because this money is being taken out of the US Economy and infused into these third world crap holes to finance more illegals streaming into the US, often by Legal US Residents or citizens with relatives "back home"....not to mention the drug cartel soldiers who"Smurf" money back to the giant spider thru the web of small transactions under 10,000.

Hitting the check cashing places with additional "fee's" is also a good idea since these places often have money wire services, so get them double.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on April 01, 2016, 05:46:35 AM
My version doesn't just target illegals....it targets everybody who is sending money to these source countries of the illegals, primarily because this money is being taken out of the US Economy and infused into these third world crap holes to finance more illegals streaming into the US, often by Legal US Residents or citizens with relatives "back home"....not to mention the drug cartel soldiers who"Smurf" money back to the giant spider thru the web of small transactions under 10,000.

Hitting the check cashing places with additional "fee's" is also a good idea since these places often have money wire services, so get them double.

Disallow them INTERNATIONAL money wiring services.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on April 01, 2016, 05:46:35 AM
My version doesn't just target illegals....it targets everybody who is sending money to these source countries of the illegals, primarily because this money is being taken out of the US Economy and infused into these third world crap holes to finance more illegals streaming into the US, often by Legal US Residents or citizens with relatives "back home"....not to mention the drug cartel soldiers who"Smurf" money back to the giant spider thru the web of small transactions under 10,000.

Hitting the check cashing places with additional "fee's" is also a good idea since these places often have money wire services, so get them double.

Forgot about the cash mules, sorry. You're right. Make 'em all fair game and hit their modes of conveyance until they vanish. If I have to pay taxes, and do, then so must they, else they pay penalties the same as would I. But there's no such equality in just taxing a part of outgoing drug money: a different confiscatory mindset is definitely required. There it's not a tax, it's just plain grabbed up whole. (Aside from overzealous property seizures this is not necessarily a problem if the legal case is solid against that defendant.)