(06-07-2019, 11:17 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(06-07-2019, 11:05 AM)mikesez Wrote: Mexico is our neighbor, not our kid.

But you want to pay them to do something they should be doing in the first place.  What if every country acted that way?  What if every country just stuck out their hand and said, we're not going to do anything until you pay us?

Besides, your distinction between "actively doing something" and "not doing something" is bogus because can't you say they are actively allowing these people to walk on up to the US border?  What's the difference between active and passive here?  It's a decision they made to do nothing about it.  But your solution is to bribe them to do what they should be doing in the first place.  What if they were allowing air or water pollution to flow into our country?  Should we pay them off to induce them to stop?  Where does it all end, if you pay people off to do what they should be doing in the first place?

I agree that the distinction between "active" and "passive" is not always clear.
But detaining people is clearly active rather than passive. And failing to detain them is clearly passive.
Environmental or pollution concerns are more appropriately addressed with tariffs. If a country has lax environmental laws, that lowers their production costs, so an economic punishment makes sense.  I don't think we have to decide if environmental problems are active or passive to come to that conclusion.

---