The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses
New U.S. anti–money laundering rules on low‑value cross‑border transfers are being criticized for crippling small, largely immigrant-run remittance and car-loan businesses along the Mexico border while doing little to disrupt cartel finances. Commenters argue that, whatever the stated goal of fighting narcotics and terrorism, the practical effect is to surveil and deter undocumented and low‑income communities from basic financial activity in a system that already locks many out of traditional banking. The thread widens into a debate over whether such policies are intentional tools of immigration control and social exclusion, or overreaching but good‑faith attempts to tackle real problems like cartel power and tax evasion.
Stated vs Actual Purpose of the Rule
- Many argue the “anti–cartel money laundering” framing is dishonest; large-scale laundering is seen as occurring via global finance, not $200 transfers at the border.
- The rule is viewed by several as intentionally targeting immigrant communities and cross-border family remittances, not cartels.
- Others raise the general issue of “unintended consequences” vs “real purpose,” debating whether harm to small businesses and immigrants is collateral damage or the main objective.
Voters, Racism, and Naivety
- One line of discussion questions whether affected business owners truly believed the policy was about crime, or whether they overlooked obvious racist and anti-immigrant signals.
- Some commenters suggest economic-justification narratives (“I voted for business reasons”) often mask attraction to racism, nativism, and gender/sexual-minority hostility.
- Counterpoints ask for data rather than assuming all supporters are driven by bigotry.
“The Purpose of a System Is What It Does” (POSIWID)
- Users invoke POSIWID to argue you infer policy intent from observed outcomes (hurting remittances, chilling immigrant activity).
- Others criticize POSIWID as a “thought-terminating cliché,” noting it ignores constraints, tradeoffs, and genuine unintended consequences.
- Linked essays/blog posts are discussed as critiques or elaborations, with no consensus.
Immigration, Work Visas, and Car Loans
- A related thread covers an executive order restricting low-dollar cross-border transfers and car loans for people without work visas.
- Some see this as using “national security” to make life unlivable for certain immigrants rather than targeting cartels.
- Others respond that people “not supposed to be here” shouldn’t get such financial access; critics counter that many non–work-visa residents are legally present and deeply integrated into the economy.
Unbanked, Small Businesses, and Banking Abuse
- Commenters ask why people don’t just use banks. Replies highlight:
- Large “unbanked” populations, especially immigrants.
- Punitive overdraft practices, reordering of transactions, and fee traps that disproportionately hit low-balance customers.
- Some stress that small cash-transfer shops serve a real need in communities that distrust or are excluded from formal banking.
Cartels, Drugs, and Policy Efficacy
- Several note cartels’ deep entanglement in everyday Mexican economic life and argue US demand for drugs is the root driver.
- Proposed solutions range from legalizing/re-regulating drugs to more aggressive crackdowns on dealers; others point out cartels diversify into legal markets (e.g., agriculture).
- A recurring theme: policy burdens “salt of the earth” people while doing little to structurally disrupt cartels or high-level money laundering.