So you don't think having the government seize the assets of a private entity for political or economical protectionist purposes would reek of fascism?

Hmm.. what other industries can Uncle Sam take hold of while we're at it... how bout the oil companies?  We'll just say it's for "environmental" purposes.  Or how about all the gun manufacturers so the 2nd ammendment can effectively be abolished?

If you're going to allow government seizure of private assets merely for threatening to move jobs offshore, than might as well do it to the "baddest" of the bunch like Big Oil and guns, amirite?

But the jobs in a car factory are high skill positions. These typically don't go to illegal immigrants. Immigrants do fill these positions, but through H1B1 visas, etc.

The wall is more about keeping as much of the drug cartel contained as possible. The hundreds of millions worth of hard drugs being smuggled in is the ultimate need that needs to stopped. It empowers the groups selling them to be able to purchase weapons and more product.

The Wall is about Trump feeding red meat to the racist part of his base that he knows he's needs to keep happy. Mexicans are the perfect scapegoat, Muslims would be better but gosh darn it there's just not enough of them in the US to pick on, so Mexicans who clean shit-stained toilets and hotel cum-stained bedsheets and pick fruit in the scorching sun for 12 hours a day are the scape goat for America's problems. 

If he was interested in combating the drug war in a real way, go push for legal marijuana, but of course you don't see Trump doing that. He gives no shit about the actual drug cartels. 

Building the wall is about securing the border, it isnt about keeping out Mexicans. The border between Mexico and the US is a major crossing point for people originating from Mexico and other countries as well.

..... Do you not read the articles that you source?

First of all, the new study was done by a professor from Berkeley of all schools..... A very liberal school that's been in the news not that long ago that suggests that the staff there might not be so objective on anything.

Further along in that article.

"A city-commissioned report by University of Washington researchers last year reached a more mixed conclusion.

That study said the law indeed helped to raise the hourly pay for low-wage workers.

But it also concluded that while the employment rate for such workers was better than the historical average due to the booming overall economy, the minimum-wage law itself appeared to have slightly lowered their employment rate and hours worked, relative to regional trends."

"Heidi Mann, who with her husband owns a Subway franchise near the Shoreline border, said she had seven employees, including her husband, two years ago. But she’s gradually had to let four of them go and is down to one full-timer, one part-timer and her husband, who’s working 60 hours a week and likely to take on more hours soon, she said.

Because she’s a franchisee, her Subway is considered a big business and must pay $15 an hour. “That’s why our prices are higher than the Subway in Shoreline or the mom-and-pop shop down the street,” Mann said.

She raised the prices of sandwiches an average of 86  cents to help offset the minimum-wage boost, and said she’s lost customers because of the increases."

It sounds like this isn't going so well. I'd like to see multiple studies done on this when the full 15 is affecting every business there for a bit. I also want to see how it affects overall hours per employee, weekly/monthly/yearly earnings etc in comparison to before the law took effect.

"Anticipating Trump’s announcement, in early May, 25 major U.S. companies — including Apple, Facebook, Mars Incorporated and Morgan Stanley — published a full-page letter in several newspapers that read: “By expanding markets for innovative clean technologies, the agreement generates jobs and economic growth. U.S. companies are well positioned to lead in these markets. Withdrawing from the agreement will limit our access to them and could expose us to retaliatory measures.”"

Pulling out of Paris will result in creating jobs in China that could have been created in the United States. And China have siezed this opportunity to become the world leader on this front. They have invested the most (hundreds of billions) into this job sector just in the recent years and the three largest providers of solar panels are already solely Chinese companies. Pulling out of the agreement is part of it, but Trump's reasoning is also an issue. He does it to save a few coal and oil jobs, which are doomed anyway and have been in decline for decades.