Why Hillary and Her Wall Street Donors Don’t Want Trump’s Wall
When GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump first talked about building a “big, beautiful wall” at the southern border of the U.S. he was met with fierce resistance. Given the facts that the southern border is the main route used by drug smugglers and criminal illegal immigrants (all persons who cross the border illegal commit a Federal misdemeanor the first time, a felony the second time) there would not seem to be a good reason to resist lawful regulation of border entry. As usual, the answer may be in who gains from the absence of a Wall, and what they gain. The best way to get the answer is to follow the money.
Right now the transfer of money from persons working in the U.S. to Mexico, called “personal remittances” are a major source of Mexican revenue. The growth of remittance revenue is a recent development. Mexico seized the assets of nearly all foreign oil companies operating in Mexico in 1938. But as American sanctuary cities flouted Federal law and encouraged illegal immigration after 1980, those working in the U.S. started to wire transfer money back to their families in amounts that became so large that by the late 1990s remittances to Mexico were the second largest source of foreign revenues, second only to oil revenues.
According to the World Bank, in 2015 the world’s top remittance corridor was from the United States to Mexico. As much as $25.2 billion dollars was sent back to Mexico from people working in the U.S. Remittances are a great source of revenue for Mexico and are more stable than all other flows such as oil.
In 1979 the Police Chief of Los Angeles publicly stated that he would not enforce immigration law. Following this announcement, which was the effective beginning of Los Angeles as a sanctuary city, remittances to Mexico from the U.S. grew very rapidly from only $177 million in 1979 to $26.9 billion in 2007, following the growth of those sectors of the economy such as construction where illegal immigrants worked. After the 2007 economic peak there was a drop in 2009 to $22 billion. But in 2015 the amount of remittances climbed back to $26.2 billion, according to the World Bank. Ninety-eight percent of all remittances sent to Mexico come from the U.S.
It is no coincidence that the most rapid growth occurred from 2000 to 2008 when Vincente Fox was the president of Mexico. This is why the most emotional and energetic resistance to the Wall came from Vincente Fox, who used abusive language toward Trump. His statement were cloaked in emotion and anger, a skillfully crafted disguise for the real reason for his concern: money.
One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National Review reported that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals.
Since the political economy of Los Angeles depends so heavily on the Federal and state program money that supports illegal immigration, the Los Angeles Times still defends Special Order 40 as essential to, paradoxically, law and order. It’s also essential to the economy of Los Angeles but somehow the Times doesn’t mention that fact.
One may ask why the Federal government chooses to spend so much money on the incarceration of criminal aliens by defying the Federal 1996 Immigration Act. But it’s important to keep in mind the benefits the Federal government, particularly the Democrat Party, the party of government sector teacher unions, obtains from illegal immigration. After all, their four biggest campaign contributors, the Service Employees International Union, the National Education Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and American Federation of Teachers are four of the top six contributors from 1989 to present. And they give over 99% of their contributors to Democrats. Today sixty five percent of public school students in Los Angeles County are Hispanic. In Chicago 46% are Hispanic.
Democrats, who have dominated almost all large metropolitan areas since FDR, are heavily dependent on illegal immigrants and their children. Should Trump build an effective wall, he would disrupt the flow of illegal immigrants, public school students, teacher union donations and block grant money to all their most important bases of electoral and demographic support. Trump’s wall is the major threat to what they see as their party’s long term goal of maintaining control of state governments as well as the national government.
Multimillionaire Jorge Ramos of Univision has criticized Trump aggressively. While Univision may have no obvious direct financial interest in remittances, their TV network certainly stands to profit from increases in Hispanic viewership, increases that are totally dependent on the growth of the Hispanic populations in cities they serve.
In short, everything that matters to Hillary and her Democrat Party is existentially threatened by Trump’s wall. And as a personal matter, Hillary’s multi-million dollar speech income from Wall Street contributors is also threatened: the banks make money from the wire transfers. Every time someone in the U.S. wires money to Mexico, the banks, currency exchanges, and other providers of wire transfer services make easy money. And the loss of low paying jobs to teenagers and seniors to illegal immigrants also contributes to the recession. Hillary and her party supporters desperately need illegal immigrants: Hillary is bought and paid for.
We now know that the big Wall Street banks bought her and you are paying for it in many ways. Hillary will not reveal what she has said to big bank contributors, but it is not unlikely that she reassured them that she will allow an open border to exist on the Southern part of the U.S. Recent email leaks have confirmed that she believes in open borders.
And then there’s the humanitarian issue. After all, the rationalization for allowing illegal immigration is that we need people to do “low paid jobs no one else will do.” This is a racist, humiliating characterization of Hispanics from Mexico and other Central American countries. America’s most shameful chapter in its history was its promotion of the institution of slavery, the importation of blacks from Africa to do “low paid jobs no one else will do.” It is hard to understand how anyone with sensitivity toward racial minorities can now bring up another generation of low paid workers. Vincente Fox never discusses this abuse, or the rape trees human smugglers construct as monuments to their criminal rape of young Hispanic women illegally crossing the border from the South.
Those following the money trail would say this follows the pattern perfectly: that Hillary allows illegal immigrants to be exploited by cartels and rapists in order for the banks she protects to collect their remittance transfer money. Somehow these humanitarian topics are avoided. We know that Wall Street investment banks gave tens of millions to support Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. These same banks make easy profits from of illegal immigrant bank transfer fees as well as high interest rate home loans and car loans targeted to Hispanics.
Hillary’s lack of humanitarian concern is accompanied by a silence toward the issue of money.
From The American Thinker (October 18, 2016)