Printable View
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/31...o-pay-for-wall
I was expecting a proposal of this kind but I'm unsure of the legal aspects.
To answer Lewk's question in the other thread, if Trump builds the wall and gets Mexico to pay for it, that will be a success from his perspective and from the perspective of his supporters.
A) It would have to pass through Congress.
B) It violates NAFTA.
C) It violates multiple WTO agreements.
The problem is enforcement for B and C is bilateral, and Mexico's ability to retaliate against the US is limited (81% of Mexican trade is with the US, while Mexico is only responsible for 13% of American trade). The main retaliation would come from the markets. If they believe the US is no longer serious about its trade and other economic obligations, there would be a massive and sudden run on the dollar, along with demands for significantly higher interest rates on new American debt.
D) I'm less certain about this one, but since NAFTA and various WTO treaties are part of American law, Congress can't pass a law that contradicts those treaties. It would first have to withdraw from NAFTA and the WTO. This is a question that would take years to adjudicate though.
I look forward to seeing all these people who own land on the border start throwing fits and initiating lawsuits whenever they realize this wall will mean losing their land to eminent domain by the government.
Past actions don't and cannot bind future actions in congress. If congress passed a law that says 'we aren't gonna follow NAFTA' than we aren't following it anymore. While there may be consequences to that in the political realm (and certainly in the economic one) you need to stop pushing this nonsense of international law ever challenging America's national sovereignty which is supreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That entirely depends on how the Supreme Court ranks the legislation in question. It's very likely that any verdict on precedence would fall out in the favor of NAFTA untill the US has withdrawn from it. At least, that was the case untill last week. I don't know if the Supreme Court will have its decisions dictated from the West Wing from now on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Congress can withdraw from NAFTA if it wants. From memory it needs to give six months notice to do so but that would be doable.
This would be in violation of WTO rules too so either you just break the rules and essentially go on undermining that or simply withdraw from the WTO too. Which would be very concerning.
WTO rules forbid targeting other nations. You can come to comprehensive trade deals with someone but have to treat everyone else the same. This is known as Most Favored Nation status.
The only way to pass this tax while not violating WTO rules would be to tax ALL imports like this regardless of country of origin. You could exempt limited nations like Canada by leaving NATO and forming trade deals with them.
None is beyond what Trump would want to do. Good luck negotiating with him. I suggest May, besides washing her hands, also checks if all her fingsers are still there.
She might want to, you know, put a tarp down or something on the bed she's sleeping in.
You need to read more about US laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32528.pdf
Congressional legislation can't just override/overwrite treaties, no. That's established constitutional jurisprudence. Treaties take precedence (that 2/3 senate requirement puts 'em on a higher level than normal legislation). How treaty provisions are enacted, however, is a matter of executive power, and if Congress and the Executive are in agreement, the courts don't really have much they can do (and so will usually elect to not hear a case on such a matter, remembering their "trail of tears" decision). Balance of power, one branch alone generally loses if opposed by the other two working together. Or three if it's a matter where state power also comes into play. Take school desegregation. If Eisenhower hadn't decided he was going to back up SCOTUS after Brown v Board then the decision wouldn't have meant much. But when the Arkansas governor tried to use the state national guard to stop integration, he backed the Court to the hilt, literally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Sure they can, if it's the right kind of action. If Congress passes an amendment and submits it for state ratification, a later Congress can't "take it back." Congress is effectively bound by that decision as it is no longer in their hands. And if it is ratified, they can't do squat about it. Hell, that's even the case with normal legislation. If they pass it and hand it off to the Executive to be signed or vetoed, they can't ask for it back. If the President chooses to sign it they're SOL. Sure they can pass another bill to repeal it but if the President feels like vetoing that repeal. . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Treaties are a similar situation. The Senate has to pass a treaty with a supermajority in order for it to be ratified. The House can't do squat about the Senate choosing to do so, and a mere majority in a later Senate can't do squat about it either.
As a general guideline, Congress is not bound by the acts of a prior Congress. But there are nuances to that which is why it merely a general guideline and not an absolute and universal rule.
If congress passed a law that says 'we aren't gonna follow NAFTA' than we aren't following it anymore. While there may be consequences to that in the political realm (and certainly in the economic one) you need to stop pushing this nonsense of international law ever challenging America's national sovereignty which is supreme.[/QUOTE]
OK fair enough Fuzzy there are certain things congress can't rule over themselves (ie an amendment they help pass that gets ratified) however NAFTA doesn't count as a treaty as it wasn't passed by 2/3rds of the senate. All it would take is simple majorities in the house/senate and the president's signature and NAFTA can die in a day.
The real question is will Republicans who are *supposed* to be in favor of free trade play ball?
It's not important with how many votes something is passed but how many votes are needed for it to be passed. A normal law passed by unanimity is still just a normal law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
WTO membership was passed by treaty. That means no law can go against it. We'd need to withdraw first.
Yes WTO is the much bigger concern.
Side note - even if this 20% tariff went into effect to pay for the wall, the cost would be born by US consumers/ manufacturers in the form of 20% increased price of goods/ components. It's not like Mexican producers are just going to eat the tariff. Of course US consumers will just buy less of these Mexican goods because of the price increases and US manufacturers will re-source to slightly more expensive labor markets, and the Mexico economy will be hurt, and the US economy will be hurt. And the wall will still have to be paid for by US tax dollars. And illegals crossing the border will just dig a tunnel under it or use a ladder over it, because a wall by itself is not a real barrier, it's only a structure that makes defending easier. Without defenders on the wall, it's merely an inconvenience to crossers. So Trump's wall will have to have an army to patrol it, and that's a huge fucking additional cost. And so it won't happen, so this wall an the economic pain of paying for it, is really all just money flushed down the toilet. The party slogan should be "Republicans -- Proving Government Can't Do Anything Right."
Israel built a wall and it has worked there. Where there's a will there's a way.
all right guys. Let that sink in for a moment.
OK a moment has passed Aimless. Do you want to make a point now?
A number of European nations have built walls on their borders in the last year or two as well.
Hmm. Lot's here....Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
First, I agree. Where there's a will, there's a way. If Trump really wants that wall work, and somehow convinces congress to fully fund the construction and the man-power to patrol it, then yeah, it would certainly work. But I believe the cost to man the completed wall will be too high and congress won't do it. They probably won't even fully fund the completion.
Second, a key difference between Isreal's wall and this one is scale. The Mexican border is very very long and runs through some very remote, very harsh territory. The cost to wall it off and patrol it is going to be huge.
Third, another difference is motivation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isreal's wall was, at least in part, a means to address existential threats - repeated, very real, very deadly terrorist attacks. The US wall is a political stunt more than anything else. There is no existential threat, there are no, or very very few, American workers losing jobs to illegals, the illegals aren't mostly a bunch of criminals and rapists, they don't come here and go right onto welfare or drop anchor babies to suck up our very scant social services. They are by and large highly motivated working people who, while often exploited, do contribute a lot to the US economy.
Apples to oranges.
No, they haven't. And not, it hasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
To clarify: the vast majority of barriers Israel has built along their international and internal borders are not walls - they are some combination of fences and sensors. Not too unlike the current US Mexican border, though with some greater sophistication (some rugged portions - such as bits along the southern border with Egypt and Jordan - are not even fenced due to the terrain). The portions that are walls are almost entirely near urban areas and are not really intended to be a block to smugglers or terrorists; rather, the primary point of those walls is to block sniper fire, which has killed a number of Israelis in the Jerusalem area in recent decades. Illegal workers and terrorist can and do circumvent Israeli border controls - famously in Gaza, through the digging of sophisticated tunnels, but also through a variety of simpler methods for workers trying to get from the West Bank to Israel.
Israel's border barriers (not specifically the walls) largely exist to funnel traffic through a few chokepoints that are easier to surveil, but they are not intended to stop someone determined. That role is assigned to Israeli intelligence and their security apparatus, which generally gets sufficient warning of incoming attacks (and has sufficiently sophisticated methods to control the movement of people inside Israel itself) that they are able to prevent most attacks. The border fence is not a panacea, certainly not to prevent something like illegal immigration over the rugged terrain of much of the US-Mexico border (Israel also has a modest illegal immigration problem along their southern border, with similar challenges to the US).
Furthermore, I think it's important to note that a large proportion of drug smuggling enters the US through border crossings, and a large proportion of illegal immigrants enter the US legally but overstay tourist visas. Neither of these will be addressed by building a wall.
That being said, while I think the wall is wasteful, stupid, counterproductive, etc. I am not up in arms over it. I am much more concerned about US attempts to get Mexico to 'pay for' the wall, and the resulting trade disputes.
The Hungarian border fence is probably the better comparison than Israel's as far as motivation is concerned.
Edit wrote this without seeing or reading the reply by wiggin.
Edit2 However there the situation is different as Hungary wasn't the destination and could be diverted around.
Sorry about the double post guys but I'm typing quickly and didn't see EK's post before I posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
1. Beefing up the border patrol and improving our screening at checkpoints is far more effective than building a wall. And indeed it would be expensive.
2. Not really true. Israel's West Bank barrier alone is about 700-odd kilometers. I don't know exactly how long they are planning on making the border wall in the US, but the border is about 3k km long. Remember further that Israel has also fenced several hundred km of border with Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and even some with Jordan, and the terrain is similarly challenging in the south. The scale is quite similar, and the Israeli cost was substantial (though not $15 billion). This is a circumference to land area kind of problem, so proportionally it's much more expensive for Israel to build barriers along its borders than it is for the US. It costs Israel a lot, but they do it because they have to. The US has somewhat more leeway.
3. A border wall does not address existential threats. Armies and WMDs (the only real existential threats to Israel) are not stopped by border barriers, even if they are supplemented by minefields as in Israel's northern border. Israel's border barriers are designed to limit some security threats (but not existential ones) as well as to limit illegal movement of people and goods such as Sudanese/Somalis coming in from Egypt, Palestinian workers coming from the West Bank, and drug smugglers coming from a bunch of places (mostly the Sinai). Israel's security threats are more profound, yes, but suicide bombings are not existential threats.
The Hungarian fence mostly worked because crossing it gets you in prison and because there were easier ways than cutting through a fence and getting in prison. It gave a short term relief for Hungary itself, but could have brought down the EU alltogether, which would have been horrible for Hungary. The reason why pressure was taken off though lies not in fences anywher ein Europe, but on the intensive patrols in Turkish waters and closer cooperation with the Greek coast guard.