You go to war with the Army you have.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If tariffs against China really are retaliation for them not respecting IP laws, the punishment at least fits the crime.
That's not the case with Mexico.
Whether or not Mexico prevents Central Americans from reaching its northern border has nothing to do with the cost of producing things in Mexico.

But we definitely want the Mexican government to stop Central Americans from coming through Mexico's Southern border on their way to the United States.  So Trump is taking advantage of the presently strong US economy to pressure Mexico to do something.

If the Mexican government didn't know for sure that these hundreds of thousands of migrants from south of them were definitely going to leave Mexico at the Northern Mexican border, they would have sealed their Southern border by now, right?  They just let them walk through, because they're not staying in Mexico.  Pretty inexcusable, don't you think?

I wouldn't make any of those assumptions.
Mexico's motivations are opaque and many of its officials are corrupt.
Regardless of that, I think we can say that if someone is actively doing something, and you want them to stop, you give a punishment.
If someone is passively failing to do something, shame could work, but cash money usually works best. Punishment just creates ill-will in that case.
A couple of years ago, the EU paid Turkey to start trying to keep Syrian refugees in their country  rather than letting them continue to Europe.  And it  worked! If you want someone  to do something for you, that will cost them money, that is not necessarily in their own interest, offer to help pay.

---

But we definitely want the Mexican government to stop Central Americans from coming through Mexico's Southern border on their way to the United States.  So Trump is taking advantage of the presently strong US economy to pressure Mexico to do something.

If the Mexican government didn't know for sure that these hundreds of thousands of migrants from south of them were definitely going to leave Mexico at the Northern Mexican border, they would have sealed their Southern border by now, right?  They just let them walk through, because they're not staying in Mexico.  Pretty inexcusable, don't you think?

I wouldn't make any of those assumptions.
Mexico's motivations are opaque and many of its officials are corrupt.
Regardless of that, I think we can say that if someone is actively doing something, and you want them to stop, you give a punishment.
If someone is passively failing to do something, shame could work, but cash money usually works best.  Punishment just creates ill-will in that case.
A couple of years ago, the EU paid Turkey to start trying to keep Syrian refugees in their country  rather than letting them continue to Europe.  And it  worked! If you want someone  to do something for you, that will cost them money, that is not necessarily in their own interest, offer to help pay.

You want to pay them to induce them to do what they should be doing in the first place?  So if a kid refuses to do his chores, his parents should double his allowance?

---

I wouldn't make any of those assumptions.
Mexico's motivations are opaque and many of its officials are corrupt.
Regardless of that, I think we can say that if someone is actively doing something, and you want them to stop, you give a punishment.
If someone is passively failing to do something, shame could work, but cash money usually works best.  Punishment just creates ill-will in that case.
A couple of years ago, the EU paid Turkey to start trying to keep Syrian refugees in their country  rather than letting them continue to Europe.  And it  worked! If you want someone  to do something for you, that will cost them money, that is not necessarily in their own interest, offer to help pay.

You want to pay them to induce them to do what they should be doing in the first place?  So if a kid refuses to do his chores, his parents should double his allowance?

Mexico is our neighbor, not our kid.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You want to pay them to induce them to do what they should be doing in the first place?  So if a kid refuses to do his chores, his parents should double his allowance?

Mexico is our neighbor, not our kid.

Actually they are more like our little unwanted adopted brother Damien.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You want to pay them to induce them to do what they should be doing in the first place?  So if a kid refuses to do his chores, his parents should double his allowance?

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?

---

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.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

Semantical arguments aside, shouldn't we be just a little bit ticked off that the Mexicans are letting people come through their country in order to cross the US border illegally?  I think I'm with Trump on this one.  The Mexican government needs to put a stop to this.  

Suppose there were millions of Chinese landing in Canada, and Canada didn't care because they knew all those Chinese were in Canada so they could walk across the US border?  And Canada was just letting them through?  Shouldn't we be a little bit urinated about that?

---

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.

Semantical arguments aside, shouldn't we be just a little bit ticked off that the Mexicans are letting people come through their country in order to cross the US border illegally?  I think I'm with Trump on this one.  The Mexican government needs to put a stop to this.  

Suppose there were millions of Chinese landing in Canada, and Canada didn't care because they knew all those Chinese were in Canada so they could walk across the US border?  And Canada was just letting them through?  Shouldn't we be a little bit urinated about that?

I think that's kind of a ridiculous hypothetical.
Canada would not be able to have any certainty about whether those Chinese people intended to stay or not.
And in any case, if we don't want people to cross to our side of the border, it is our job to stop them, not anybody else's. 
Are you making some kind of PP in our Coke joke, and I'm missing it?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

What's a synonym for urinated? Cycle through until you get one that makes sense in that context. The more inappropriate, the better in this scenario.

The question is does Mexico have any power to stop immigrants from coming through their country. If the answer is yes, then it's perfectly reasonable to punish or reward based on those efforts. If the answer is no, then punishment or compensation isn't going to do anything. Do you know the answer to the question, Mike?

---

What's a synonym for urinated? Cycle through until you get one that makes sense in that context. The more inappropriate, the better in this scenario.

The question is does Mexico have any power to stop immigrants from coming through their country. If the answer is yes, then it's perfectly reasonable to punish or reward based on those efforts. If the answer is no, then punishment or compensation isn't going to do anything. Do you know the answer to the question, Mike?

I don't think that's actually how stuff works. Yes, Mexico could stop most of these people.  But
Mexico's government is supposed to make Mexicans safe and happy.  It's unreasonable to expect them to do the bidding of Americans without compensation. That could be us giving them money, or us agreeing to do something that they have been wanting us to do for a while.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

What's a synonym for urinated? Cycle through until you get one that makes sense in that context. The more inappropriate, the better in this scenario.

The question is does Mexico have any power to stop immigrants from coming through their country. If the answer is yes, then it's perfectly reasonable to punish or reward based on those efforts. If the answer is no, then punishment or compensation isn't going to do anything. Do you know the answer to the question, Mike?

I don't think that's actually how stuff works. Yes, Mexico could stop most of these people.  But
Mexico's government is supposed to make Mexicans safe and happy.  It's unreasonable to expect them to do the bidding of Americans without compensation.

Okay, here's your "compensation."  You do what you ought to be doing in the first place, help us out, and we won't hit you with this 2x4.  

We have a crisis on the border.  Even the so-called mainstream media says that.  Congress refuses to do anything about it.  Mexico is allowing this to happen, even though they have the ability to help ameliorate the situation.  

Sometimes, in the real world, you have to twist arms to get what you need.  This is one time I agree with Trump.  This stuff needs to stop.

---

I don't think that's actually how stuff works. Yes, Mexico could stop most of these people.  But
Mexico's government is supposed to make Mexicans safe and happy.  It's unreasonable to expect them to do the bidding of Americans without compensation.

Okay, here's your "compensation."  You do what you ought to be doing in the first place, help us out, and we won't hit you with this 2x4.  

We have a crisis on the border.  Even the so-called mainstream media says that.  Congress refuses to do anything about it.  Mexico is allowing this to happen, even though they have the ability to help ameliorate the situation.  

Sometimes, in the real world, you have to twist arms to get what you need.  This is one time I agree with Trump.  This stuff needs to stop.

I don't think we get to tell other countries what they ought to be doing. Something is either in the other country's interests or it's not.
How would you like it if Mexico told us that we ought to be restricting gun sales within our country, and they would place tariffs on us if we did not?
Or if Canada told us that we ought to have more universal health care, and they would impose tariffs if we did not?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Okay, here's your "compensation."  You do what you ought to be doing in the first place, help us out, and we won't hit you with this 2x4.  

We have a crisis on the border.  Even the so-called mainstream media says that.  Congress refuses to do anything about it.  Mexico is allowing this to happen, even though they have the ability to help ameliorate the situation.  

Sometimes, in the real world, you have to twist arms to get what you need.  This is one time I agree with Trump.  This stuff needs to stop.

I don't think we get to tell other countries what they ought to be doing. Something is either in the other country's interests or it's not.
How would you like it if Mexico told us that we ought to be restricting gun sales within our country, and they would place tariffs on us if we did not?
Or if Canada told us that we ought to have more universal health care, and they would impose tariffs if we did not?

Is crime in Mexico and healthcare in Canada heavily affected by our domestic policies on those issues?

---

I don't think we get to tell other countries what they ought to be doing. Something is either in the other country's interests or it's not.
How would you like it if Mexico told us that we ought to be restricting gun sales within our country, and they would place tariffs on us if we did not?
Or if Canada told us that we ought to have more universal health care, and they would impose tariffs if we did not?

Is crime in Mexico and healthcare in Canada heavily affected by our domestic policies on those issues?

Everything affects everything.
People who come here seeking asylum, the ones who turned themselves in at the first opportunity, are about the least likely people to become violent criminals.
Now, the people sneaking across the border, they are a little more likely to become violent criminals, but the best statistics indicate that they aren't significantly more likely than native-born people to become violent criminals.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Is crime in Mexico and healthcare in Canada heavily affected by our domestic policies on those issues?

Everything affects everything.
People who come here seeking asylum, the ones who turned themselves in at the first opportunity, are about the least likely people to become violent criminals.
Now, the people sneaking across the border, they are a little more likely to become violent criminals, but the best statistics indicate that they aren't significantly more likely than native-born people to become violent criminals.

I would say that Mexico's intentional inaction to control the flow of illegal aliens crossing their borders has a far, far greater effect on illegal immigration in this country than U.S. gun sales have on Mexican crime and U.S. healthcare practices have on the Canadian healthcare system.

---

Okay, here's your "compensation."  You do what you ought to be doing in the first place, help us out, and we won't hit you with this 2x4.  

We have a crisis on the border.  Even the so-called mainstream media says that.  Congress refuses to do anything about it.  Mexico is allowing this to happen, even though they have the ability to help ameliorate the situation.  

Sometimes, in the real world, you have to twist arms to get what you need.  This is one time I agree with Trump.  This stuff needs to stop.

I don't think we get to tell other countries what they ought to be doing. Something is either in the other country's interests or it's not.
How would you like it if Mexico told us that we ought to be restricting gun sales within our country, and they would place tariffs on us if we did not?
Or if Canada told us that we ought to have more universal health care, and they would impose tariffs if we did not?

Mexico was not just letting Central Americans cross their territory to illegally the US, they were aiding and abetting them. Do you really think those caravans were fully equipped with provisions for a 1000 mile hike?

As far as your hypothetical, the US could just tell them to stuff it. We don't OWE them the privilege of free trade with the US, and if they wanted to shoot themselves in the foot over their socialist desires, that's their right. Mexico gains a lot more from trade with the US than we do with them, hence their quick agreement to stop the illegals.

Trump's threat worked, just as I predicted it would. Stick that in your TDS basket.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I don't think we get to tell other countries what they ought to be doing. Something is either in the other country's interests or it's not.
How would you like it if Mexico told us that we ought to be restricting gun sales within our country, and they would place tariffs on us if we did not?
Or if Canada told us that we ought to have more universal health care, and they would impose tariffs if we did not?

Mexico was not just letting Central Americans cross their territory to illegally the US, they were aiding and abetting them. Do you really think those caravans were fully equipped with provisions for a 1000 mile hike?

As far as your hypothetical, the US could just tell them to stuff it. We don't OWE them the privilege of free trade with the US, and if they wanted to shoot themselves in the foot over their socialist desires, that's their right. Mexico gains a lot more from trade with the US than we do with them, hence their quick agreement to stop the illegals.

Trump's threat worked, just as I predicted it would. Stick that in your TDS basket.

+1

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I don't think we get to tell other countries what they ought to be doing. Something is either in the other country's interests or it's not.
How would you like it if Mexico told us that we ought to be restricting gun sales within our country, and they would place tariffs on us if we did not?
Or if Canada told us that we ought to have more universal health care, and they would impose tariffs if we did not?

Mexico was not just letting Central Americans cross their territory to illegally the US, they were aiding and abetting them. Do you really think those caravans were fully equipped with provisions for a 1000 mile hike?

As far as your hypothetical, the US could just tell them to stuff it. We don't OWE them the privilege of free trade with the US, and if they wanted to shoot themselves in the foot over their socialist desires, that's their right. Mexico gains a lot more from trade with the US than we do with them, hence their quick agreement to stop the illegals.

Trump's threat worked, just as I predicted it would. Stick that in your TDS basket.

Great point. We have leverage over them and that goes for just about every other country in the world including China. Not trading with either of these nations does far greater harm to them than it does to us. IMO, you do what is best for yourself and your nation without any concern for that other country. Mexico benefits from from us being their neighbor and they can continue to as long as they are willing to play by our rules.

---

What's a synonym for urinated? Cycle through until you get one that makes sense in that context. The more inappropriate, the better in this scenario.

The question is does Mexico have any power to stop immigrants from coming through their country. If the answer is yes, then it's perfectly reasonable to punish or reward based on those efforts. If the answer is no, then punishment or compensation isn't going to do anything. Do you know the answer to the question, Mike?

I don't think that's actually how stuff works. Yes, Mexico could stop most of these people.  But
Mexico's government is supposed to make Mexicans safe and happy.  It's unreasonable to expect them to do the bidding of Americans without compensation. That could be us giving them money, or us agreeing to do something that they have been wanting us to do for a while.

You have such a myopic view of the world, dude. Hate to beat a dead horse, but you need to expand your thinking.

If a neighbor and I are trading goods, let's say I give them eggs from my chickens and they give me oranges from their tree. If I notice they are dumping trash on my yard and stop trading with them, that's my prerogative. If I don't like the color they painted their house, and stop trading with them, that's my prerogative. If I don't like that he's sleeping with the neighbor's wife, and stop trading with him, that's my prerogative. 

You use an unsupported conclusion to suggest that trade policy change should be only be predicated on some kind of trade grievance, but have not shown any premises that support that conclusion. My demonstration supports my position, that your claim is not how it works in any facet of our world. It's odd to me that you would reason that way in this specific example, yet you turn around and talk about the interconnection of everything a couple posts later. Please don't waste your time looking for some part of my analogy that's slightly off. The point has been clearly made. Just acquiesce or show why someone would need to limit trade preference to an official trade grievance.

---