Thank you for a well-written, must-share piece. I'd not even considered this part of the equation. (And a bonus kudo for sharing SA's "burrito antifada"!)
The difficulty with this take lies in the noise of the administration: let’s grant that this may be a legitimate target, but there remains broad actions by the government that quite apparently do not possess this sort of strategic purpose. In a contrary fashion, such actions appear to be a better fit with the public statements from within the administration, notably of Stephen Miller, a view further reinforced by the seeming back-tracking of the President on raids at certain types of establishments. Moreover, this element of disrupting money laundering would appear to be a fine hook for the warranting of a broader anti-immigrant policy, yet this rationale has (apparently) been lacking. So is there a fire here? Perhaps, but contextual evidence provides some significant caution to such a conclusion.
Remittances are a well-known piece of the immigration picture. But when immigration percolates up as a hot issue, media avoid the subject and instead focus on taxes paid by illegals who will never receive benefits. I suppose that's true. But so is the remittance factor.
Excellent analysis.
Thank you for a well-written, must-share piece. I'd not even considered this part of the equation. (And a bonus kudo for sharing SA's "burrito antifada"!)
Hmmm. Very interesting. The name of the game at every level and in every instance seems to be a form of money laundering of very dirty money.
The difficulty with this take lies in the noise of the administration: let’s grant that this may be a legitimate target, but there remains broad actions by the government that quite apparently do not possess this sort of strategic purpose. In a contrary fashion, such actions appear to be a better fit with the public statements from within the administration, notably of Stephen Miller, a view further reinforced by the seeming back-tracking of the President on raids at certain types of establishments. Moreover, this element of disrupting money laundering would appear to be a fine hook for the warranting of a broader anti-immigrant policy, yet this rationale has (apparently) been lacking. So is there a fire here? Perhaps, but contextual evidence provides some significant caution to such a conclusion.
The protests are the “my tax dollars vs also somehow my tax dollars” meme
Interesting perspective...
Remittances are a well-known piece of the immigration picture. But when immigration percolates up as a hot issue, media avoid the subject and instead focus on taxes paid by illegals who will never receive benefits. I suppose that's true. But so is the remittance factor.