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

Aeolun 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I'd say the law has achieve exactly the effect it intended.

altern8 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I forget where I read this but I agree that if you want to know the real reason for a government policy, look at the effect is has.

It's pretty obvious what they're doing.

▲

catigula 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The amount of nickel-and-diming and outright being screwed over at local businesses I've experienced in my lifetime vastly eclipses generous return policies and treatment by megacorporations.

▲

ajross 32 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This article is repeating a transparently false framing as the truth. This wasn't a law about cartel money laundering, which doesn't happen near the border anyway. Money laundering at scale happens in the global market and always has.

The clear purpose of the regulation was exactly the "side effect" detailed in the article: hurting immigrant communities that maintain ties across the border. And it worked. It does no one any good to pretend otherwise.

▲

abfan1127 17 minutes ago | parent [-]

The issue is that it wasn't "clear" to sufficient people. Too many people believe at face value the claims. Some of them honestly believe the face value claims.

	▲	scottLobster 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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 regrets his vote. Like, the "eating the cats and dogs" line, specifically targeted at Haitians, wasn't enough for you to think that maybe this guy didn't have your best interest at heart? Also Trump's history as a "businessman" is anything but wildly successful or something to envy. These people will see whatever they want to see until they get hit, so unless you're in a position to provide the hit, or somehow impart discernment that most elementary school kids have, they can only be contained and we should be happy if they pay their taxes and don't vote.

▲

bix6 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Ah yes let’s ruin someone’s life over $200 but nobody look at Trumps accounts. He definitely was debanked for political reasons and not because he was laundering money.

	▲	throwaway894345 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> He definitely was debanked for political reasons and not because he was laundering money. What proof do you have? On what planet would major banks piss off the most capricious and unrestrained president in modern US history? What possible upside could there be for them? Trump (34 time fraud felon known for scamming everyone he can and using his position in government to massively enrich himself) was almost certainly "debanked" because he is doing more of the same shady shit that he's known for and the banks are obligated by the law to treat him like anyone else.