Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 193 posts

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#51

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

gruez wrote: post #49
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything else aside, > "people without work visas" is not the same legal category as > "they're not supposed to be here"

1. So you'd agree that AI datecenter with 100 (or whatever) jet turbines merely "lacks a permit" rather than "not supposed to be there"? 2. Practically speaking, how many people lack a work visa (or similar documentation), but are supposed to be here?

Anecdotally speaking, I've personally lived in multiple countries on multi-year-long temporary resident visas without the right to work, because getting the right to work is a separate process from being allowed to be somewhere. So have family members. And in case it makes a difference, which it might, one of those countries was the US.

In fact, did you know, in Canada it doesn't count as work for visa purposes if you work over the internet for a foreign company and get paid into a foreign bank account and don't compete professionally with local interests? (This is a free hot tip for anyone wanting to live in Canada. It might be true in some other places too, but I don't know.)

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#52

Post by count »

gruez wrote: post #49
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything else aside, > "people without work visas" is not the same legal category as > "they're not supposed to be here"

1. So you'd agree that AI datecenter with 100 (or whatever) jet turbines merely "lacks a permit" rather than "not supposed to be there"? 2. Practically speaking, how many people lack a work visa (or similar documentation), but are supposed to be here?

Spouses of folks on many kinds of visa are allowed to be here, but aren't allowed to work.

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#53

Post by wombat-man »

vorpalhex wrote: post #40

It surprises me how much Americans don't understand how deeply the cartel is in every transaction. Yes, sending money to Grandma to pay for a car is funding the cartel who probably got paid to make the car available. Grandma may even pay small direct bribes to the cartel just to be able to live her life. Either all of Mexico can move to the US (probably not a winning solution) or we can make Mexico a safe and excelle…

I think it's possible, but pretty difficult. There's just too much money to be made selling drugs to the US.

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#55

Post by BobbyJo »

gruez wrote: post #36
burger_moon wrote: post #28

He's also making it difficult/impossible for people without work visas to obtain auto loans which is destroying the used car market in latino communities and cities with large latino populations. Executive Order 14406 defends this with, > Low-dollar cross-border funds transfers have been used to facilitate or commit terrorist financing, narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, and other illegal activity. They're ban…

>He's also making it difficult/impossible for people without work visas to obtain auto loans [...] >They're banging the national security drum to make it unlivable here for some. But they're not supposed to be here in the first place? As for the people who are supposed to be here, but are collateral damage (ie. "which is destroying the used car market in latino communities") should we have sympathy for people in such…

If we want to stop illegal immigration, "not getting a car loan" and "harder to move money across the border" feel like the most humane ways to slow it down.

Plus, the drug trade coming in from Mexico is, in fact, a huge problem, not just for the US, but for Mexico itself. Mexico is run by cartels specifically because of how much money is made off selling drugs to Americans. This isn't some non-existent problem they are using as cover.

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#56

Post by lokar »

vorpalhex wrote: post #40

It surprises me how much Americans don't understand how deeply the cartel is in every transaction. Yes, sending money to Grandma to pay for a car is funding the cartel who probably got paid to make the car available. Grandma may even pay small direct bribes to the cartel just to be able to live her life. Either all of Mexico can move to the US (probably not a winning solution) or we can make Mexico a safe and excelle…

A safe and prosperous Mexico would be a huge advantage to America. We should be investing a lot more into this.

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#57

Post by Ekaros »

palmotea wrote: post #46
OutOfHere wrote: post #33

Money laundering is an absurd concept. People should be free to transfer money to whoever they like, without permission. It is a fundamental purpose of money. To deny this purpose puts the validity of particular money into question. Putting up fences results in a very high rate of false positives. No wonder people use crypto as they should. If you want to go after cartels, then actually go after cartels. That's not w…

> Money laundering is an absurd concept. People should be free to transfer money to whoever they like, without permission. They got Al Capone for tax evasion, not any of the other obviously illegal stuff he was doing. I don't know the details, but I imagine it was because he put in effort to create an organization that made it difficult-to-impossible for the law-abiding feds to go after him directly. That's why it's…

Obvious solution is to make soft drugs like fentanyl fully legal. Just apply sufficient purity to standards as regulation like with any other drug. Issue solved instantly. It is not like other deathly drugs aren't already legal.

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#58

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

mdp2021 wrote: post #47
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything else aside, > "people without work visas" is not the same legal category as > "they're not supposed to be here"

People with tourist visas I expect fully entitled and able to get car loans... (Edit: maybe I am misunderstanding the whole thing: is it "loaning cars" or is it "loaning the money to buy cars"?)

A car loan is usually loaning money for the purpose of buying a car, not loaning a car.

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#59

Post by scottLobster »

watwut wrote: post #22
scottLobster wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that more information will help those people. I saw an interview with a Haitian-American restaurant chain owner who voted for Trump and was dismayed that he might have to close a couple of locations due the removal of Temporary Protective Status for Haiti causing him to lose employees. He said that Trump sold him on the idea that "he was a businessman, and would act like a businessman", and that he now r…

> Also Trump's history as a "businessman" is anything but wildly successful or something to envy. Maybe we should stop treating these contradictions with Polyanna level of naivety. What is more likely: a.) these people did not seen the obvious contradictions or b.) these people are giving out publicly palatable sympathetic responses. It is all economic vote, except that conservatives were never good for small busines…

One can be both malicious and naive. Regardless, more information isn't going to solve the issue. The information was presented; they ignored it for whatever reason.

Getting them to stop ignoring information they don't like is the problem.

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#60

Post by lokar »

thinkcontext wrote: post #16

I wonder how much this will drive adoption of crypto for remittances.

I don’t see how. Their problem is they have cash and want to turn it into something else. The law criminalizes that transaction without reporting.
Post reply on HN