For those asking, this would net out to around $1 billion a year, all other factors remaining constant.

Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-weighing-a-tax-on-remittances-to-mexico-to-fund-border-wall/article/2633089

President Trump is mulling a tax on cash transfers between immigrants in the U.S. and their relatives in Mexico as a way to fund his promised border wall without forcing American taxpayers to open their wallets, according to sources familiar with the proposal.

Trump first floated the idea of taxing or halting person-to-person wire transfers, known as remittances, during his bid for the White House. A two-page memo released by his campaign last April described a plan “to compel Mexico to pay for the wall” by preventing immigrants from wiring money outside of the U.S. unless they can prove their legal status to law enforcement authorities.

Because the Mexican economy has become so dependent on wages sent home by migrant workers, which surpassed oil revenues as its leading source of foreign income in 2015, Trump said he could convince the country’s leaders to make a “one-time payment of $5-10 billion” toward his border wall by threatening to stop the annual flow of billions of dollars from the U.S. to Mexico in the form of cash transfers.

In 2016, Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. sent $27 billion to family members and friends in their native country.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If people think that this isn't enough to pay for the wall over the span of Trump's presidency, they are right. However, this can be used as leverage by the Trump administration for more favorable terms in any future trade agreements (current NAFTA renegotiations or bilateral trade negotiations should the former fail) with Mexico.

StarOcean said: This fucking wall Whoever comes next will probably tear the stupid thing down anyway, so what is the point? It's a money blackhole

I don't know, the wall is a win-win-win from all sides.

Trump gets to use it to fulfill his campaign promises and justify a new revenue stream for the government (i.e. taxing remittances). The latter part is particularly important, since Trump needs every bit shaved off that budget deficit to allow for a "cushion" should the economy falter during his rule.

The (R)s get to point to the wall to appeal to more patriotic conservatives, while defunding the Border Patrol allows for appeasing their cheap-labor corporate lobby.

The (D)s get one free good point to campaign on (namely: taking down the wall, and the immigration reform to come with it), and get one free "Trump is a racist" card to use on Mexicans. Thus, securing a new "Blue" wall comprised of broder states with Mexico (and other states with substantial Mexican-American populations).

And so on and so forth.

After all, if Israel can do it, why can't America? :P

You say all sides, but then only mention the Republicans and Democrats. While they may be the two dominant political parties, there are obviously other sides that would prefer there not to be a wall, namely people that have to cross the border frequently.

What part of the italicised did you miss? The text implies that I could go on, but elect not to.

This could serve as the breakout opportunity for a fantastic alternative material for, say, load-bearing walls. Or, it could be the rallying cry that allows Mexico to rally around one hero to break their narco-political problems once and for all. Or, this can create a literal "tourist trap," eheheheh. And so on and so forth. 

The point is that there are upsides to the wall, too, you know.

So then, by saying so-on and so forth, you're implying that it is beneficial to all sides, just that you don't want to go into detail? I guess there are upsides, if it's a huge wall we'll have to look up to attempt to get to the other side XD