AtticusMatlock said:

---

From a pragmatic standpoint how would this be enforced? How would anyone at Western Union or whatever know whether someone is on welfare?

---

Piggyback onto current federal AML databases.

The problem with all of that is it still makes a Western Union cashier the enforcement agent. These are often an employee at a grocery store or a UPS store.

That's why you build the verification into the process so it is done for everyone and is standardized and the block is done of the actual transfer if verification fails.

Yes, because cash is fungible, yhis would invite an entire industry of evading this requirement because a very large reason so many people come here illegally is specifically to exploit our generous public welfare system for augmented income.

whoop1995 said:

---

Florida says hold my beer! Anything you can do we can do better!

🚨 JUST IN: Florida will now consider a law BANNING REMITTANCES from illegal aliens, banning illegals from having BANK ACCOUNTS, and banning illegals from obtaining any loan or home owner assistance

It also AUTOMATICALLY designates illegals in a car crash "at fault" for the… pic.twitter.com/zszOow43jk

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 9, 2026

---

Gov Abbott - do what you do best, and follow!

MRB10 said:

---

Not sure state statute can, or should be able to, override tort law in a situation like a car accident.

I could see capping the amount of damages an illegal can recover. Maybe limit it to property damage and medical expenses only or something like that.

Making citizenship status the primary factor of a liability determination isn't logical.

---

At fault" automatically goes to the illegal driver until overwhelming evidence is presented

They are not saying that the other driver cannot be at fault. It simply places the burden of proof on the illegal, who is assumed to be at fault until he/she can prove otherwise.

Twisted Helix said:

---

And tax all out of country remittances.

---

I disagree with this. Because I've had to do it myself when I was working overseas.

But, I could get behind some sort of expatriation fee for money wired out if you're not on a legal work visa or permanent residency, or a US Citizen.

Of course that would probably move a lot of the "dineros seguros" from storefronts to online or into crypto or whatever.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Twisted Helix said:

---

And tax all out of country remittances.

---

I disagree with this. Because I've had to do it myself when I was working overseas.

But, I could get behind some sort of expatriation fee for money wired out if you're not on a legal work visa or permanent residency, or a US Citizen.

Of course that would probably move a lot of the "dineros seguros" from storefronts to online or into crypto or whatever.

---

I agree with you here.

If you are working here legally, and can prove the source of funds as legal work, you shouldn't get taxed to send those funds overseas.

But, I would be OK with someone having to prove that the money came from legal work before it avoided the remittance tax.

whoop1995 said:

---

Florida says hold my beer! Anything you can do we can do better!

🚨 JUST IN: Florida will now consider a law BANNING REMITTANCES from illegal aliens, banning illegals from having BANK ACCOUNTS, and banning illegals from obtaining any loan or home owner assistance

It also AUTOMATICALLY designates illegals in a car crash "at fault" for the… pic.twitter.com/zszOow43jk

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 9, 2026

---

. Nuts we even have to think about this.

Remittances of all kinds must be looked into.

H1Bs make money here and live like dogs, 20 to an apartment and send most of the money back to India. It is not spent here and not in the US economy. And since they live like dogs, it affects the areas they live in as you need to live like dogs in order to compete, hence crushing wages.

Vicious cycle. Look into this too.

bonfarr said:

---

The problem with all of that is it still makes a Western Union cashier the enforcement agent. These are often an employee at a grocery store or a UPS store.

---

Not really.

It makes the people that set the policies for what type of information is required to be gathered by the front line person in order to complete a federal wire to Somalia at Western Union the enforcement agent.

Which is how banking Know Your Consumer laws are currently enforced. If we are going to let the US government track citizen financial transactions, at least use those capabilities to kill government fraud.

I will never understand why conservatives are not willing to use laws that are abused against US citizens to target DC corruption.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. And then, get the game changed.

Twisted Helix said:

---

And tax all out of country remittances.

---

At a rate of 1000%

FIDO*98* said:

---

MRB10 said:

---

Not sure state statute can, or should be able to, override tort law in a situation like a car accident.

I could see capping the amount of damages an illegal can recover. Maybe limit it to property damage and medical expenses only or something like that.

Making citizenship status the primary factor of a liability determination isn't logical.

---

At fault" automatically goes to the illegal driver until overwhelming evidence is presented

They are not saying that the other driver cannot be at fault. It simply places the burden of proof on the illegal, who is assumed to be at fault until he/she can prove otherwise.

---

The illegal should be held at fault because they are operating the vehicle in the commission of another crime.

I 100% agree. I was just explaining to MRB that the current proposal doesn't necessarily change anything as far as tort law

Seems like in a civil case, the evidence standard is a preponderance. Is this saying that changes the evidence standard? In that case, I'll start suing all the illegals for cutting me off and causing an accident just to get settlements. It'll be hard for them to have overwhelming evidence that they weren't even there.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

That's why you build the verification into the process so it is done for everyone and is standardized and the block is done of the actual transfer if verification fails.

Yes, because cash is fungible, yhis would invite an entire industry of evading this requirement because a very large reason so many people come here illegally is specifically to exploit our generous public welfare system for augmented income.

---

Force them to come up with an illegal way to do it so they can be prosecuted for breaking that law? I think I'm ok with that.

Ok. I interpreted it differently but still don't think I agree that citizenship is relevant when it comes to apportioning fault in a tort claim.

Cap damages if you want but call a spade a spade when it comes to who caused the accident.

NE PA Ag said:

---

So logical it's ridiculous that anyone could have a problem with it.

---

Which means every single lefty and a sadly larger than we like to admit percentage of the middle and CM's will be wailing and gnashing teeth decrying this as some sort of racism or xenophobia or something. Whatever their overlords tell them it is.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

From a pragmatic standpoint how would this be enforced? How would anyone at Western Union or whatever know whether someone is on welfare?

---

Presumably by the Know Your Customer (KYC) compliance regs, for example my bank asks me annually to confirm my dual citizenship status.

I love the Friday announcements of this administration.

Ruins the weekend of the liberals and Dems.

Love this one, and its extremely logical. If you're here and making enough to send home, send it home..... but if you need govt assistance, you have no business sending it home.

txags92 said:

---

NE PA Ag said:

---

So logical it's ridiculous that anyone could have a problem with it.

---

Trump's administration has been extremely effective at making the dems take the 20% end of 80/20 issues because their TDS won't let them not oppose something he does.

---

This pattern has been so well established by Trump now I think I'll just simply refer to it as "Taking the 20" whenever you see someone taking the unpopular position. It can have a lot more usage beyond just the TDS infused lunacy.