Trump or his writers may have cited the wrong section of the wrong statute, but the Treasury Department already has ample statutory authority to require payors of all sorts, including banks, Western Union, check-cashing operators, credit card issuers, and informal money (“halwa”) transferors to withhold on and in some cases restrict remittances. You can take that to the bank.

I often wonder if “ACME” is really McMaster-Carr under another name.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article23700409.html

Economic pressure on Mexico would most certainly work. Without the flow of money to Mexico, the poor in Mexico will begin to really suffer the consequences of Mexico’s choices in government and business. Everything is about propping up the small amount of rich people in the country and using the U.S. as the relief valve.

One other interesting point.

I took your earlier “ACME” reference immediately being a big fan of the Road Runner cartoons. Note however, that the ACME products work in the cartoons exactly as intended. The rocket on Wile E. Coyote’s back operates as it is supposed to. It’s Wile E. who points himself to the cliff (or down the highway to smack into the radiator of an oncoming truck). The spring heaves the stone exactly as Wile E. intended; it’s Wile E.’s mistake to be standing in the wrong spot, etc..

So an ACME border wall would probably work work just fine. Like the coyote, we would probably build it in the wrong place (“That’s a joke, son! I say . . . that’s a joke!).

I would revise that slightly: “Boiled down, we can’t know the future. Allow for thinking out of the box.”

Sometimes thinking out of the box is genius; sometimes it’s just lunacy.

I have no criticism of your premise of using past behavior as a predictor. I do the same thing myself in my chosen career. Life, however, has a way of being like a differential equation; so many variables changing as to many different rates (IMO that’s why social science is more “social” than “science”).

I only ask that people allow for the possibility, I’m not saying “take it to the bank.”

As far as Trump goes, my idea is aimed specifically at people who, through sitting out the election, would put the oval office in the hands of Hillary Clinton. My take is that #NeverHillary is much more important than #NeverTrump. Of course, that is also an opinion.

My response. Put credence in past behavior as a predictor for future behavior. Thoroughly assess the problem before picking a proposed solution, as short cuts and faulty assumptions lead to non-solutions. Use Occam’s Razor.

Yes, “Andy” McCarthy is a seasoned attorney for whom I have great respect. But . . . he is not running a competitive political campaign in hostile territory; apples and oranges.

It goes to my original point of addressing “out-of-the-box” thinking. McCarthy is an attorney and for him most problems seek solutions within a legal framework. Sometimes solutions beyond those limitations present themselves while still being legal. Look up Charitable Remaindered Trusts as an example. A legal walk through the woods creating a structure that most people (upon first blush) think is not legal.

Let me restate—I am NOT assuming that Trump is this wise or cagey; I am also not assuming that Trump has the ability to create a circle of advisors who are. I AM suggesting that such is a possibility and we can not know this until after the fact. Remember, Charlemagne, an illiterate man who kept pen and ink at his bedside in case writing came to him in the night, assembled a court of intellects which brought Europe out of the disorder left by the fall of Rome (and to which, BTW, we owe the appearance of our writing today).

No, it’s not the least bit obvious. Au contraire.

Are you at all familiar with the work of McCarthy? Terrorism, particularly Islamist terrorism, is his specialty, and the bulk of his many many columns are on that topic, both its legal and religious aspects, both in this country and in Europe. He has also pounded very hard on the Hillary email controversy, and on Benghazi. Other interests of McCarthy’s include the Supreme Court, NSA surveillance issues, Obama’s overreach when he gave illegal immigrants amnesty, and last summer column after column on the Iran deal. I would say that, compared to most columnists on the right, McCarthy has had less to say about Donald Trump, although he certainly doesn’t support him and he has written a number of columns about him (McCarthy supports Cruz for the nomination).

When Trump announced his candidacy and for quite a few months afterward, McCarthy pretty much ignored Trump, thinking he would naturally fade in time as a candidate. But after that he has written some columns about him, and when he has criticized him, the main issues for McCarthy re Trump have been (1) his contributions to Democrats to buy influence (2) his inconsistencies (3) his rudeness and vulgarity (4) and his “touchback amnesty” (McCarthy is clearly very opposed to giving illegal immigrants amnesty). McCarthy has even written that if Trump were nominated he would probably vote for him if only because his SCOTUS appointments would be better than his opponent’s, and McCarthy has defended Trump’s comments that Muslims hate us (2 columns of McCarthy’s were devoted to that defense, this and this). He has also defended Trump’s comments about overthrowing Qaddafi. So he’s not just a kneejerk “everything Trump says is wrong” person.

McCarthy is a very prolific writer, but you will search long and hard to find any interest of his in the topic of Trump’s Mexican border wall. When Trump first was declared as a candidate, and the wall was a big big issue, McCarthy certainly could have written about Trump’s proposed wall then if McCarthy had opposed it, but he did not write on the topic. The only thing I could find that McCarthy has ever written about the wall was a very short and very sarcastic piece concerning the Pope’s speaking out against a border wall, and it is very clear from what McCarthy wrote that if anything he is in favor of a wall and believes the Pope was being highly hypocritical in condemning it.

And if McCarthy had wanted to say something against the wall in that recent piece about Trump (the column of McCarthy’s that is the topic of this post), McCarthy is not the least bit shy and he would write about the topic. Why would he have to write in some sort of hidden code, rather than directly? He doesn’t; he is perfectly capable of voicing opposition to the wall if he opposes it. He did not do so. In the column, McCarthy made it totally clear what he is actually saying, and it has to do with Trump’s proposal to make Mexico pay, and the flaws in that plan. There is no reason to write a whole column about one thing if he really meant another, and I have no idea why you would think McCarthy would need to do that or would want to do that.

And pointing out that a wall doesn’t solve all the illegal immigration problems, because many of them stem from visa overstays, has nothing to do with being pro or can a wall itself. It is merely pointing out that there is much more that would need doing in addition to a wall.

In short, you are not making a particle of sense.