Thread: GOP says border wall funds should come from immigrants in U.S.

By Seth McLaughlin and Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Updated: 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 30, 2017

A group of House Republicans on Thursday introduced the first major bill to fund President Trump’s border wall, saying the government could collect billions of dollars by imposing a 2 percent fee on all the money Mexicans and other immigrants send back home.

Estimates vary, but remittances from those in the U.S. to their relatives back home could top $130 billion a year. A 2 percent tax could net more than $2 billion a year, if it applied to all money regardless of who’s sending it.

“This bill is simple — anyone who sends their money to countries that benefit from our porous borders and illegal immigration should be responsible for providing some of the funds needed to complete the wall,” Rep. Mike Rogers, Alabama Republican, said in a statement. “This bill keeps money in the American economy, and most importantly, it creates a funding stream to build the wall.”

Mr. Rogers and Rep. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania are leading the effort.

Mr. Trump has vowed to make Mexico foot the bill for his border wall, but Mexican authorities have said they won’t play along.

Left without a funding source, he’s said American taxpayers will pick up the tab for now, and he’ll look for ways to soak Mexico in the long run.

The bill’s sponsors said remittances top $50 billion. A Pew Research Center analysis put the figure at $133 billion in 2015.

Mexico is one of the biggest beneficiaries, with more than $20 billion a year going from the U.S. to its southern neighbor, making it one of Mexico’s top sources of foreign income.

Remittances also account for a huge percentage of the economies of Central American countries.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...der-wall-bill/

Charge more like 5%...make them pay for the deportation costs too.

Good idea - as far as it goes.

I think we should stop ALL transfer of money to countries who deliberately allow and encourage people to come here illegally - and Mexico is at the top of the list.

It wouldn't bother me if they put ALL the monies into building the wall, putting personnel and equipment on he border, prosecuting criminal employers, etc.

Banks aren't going to like it, the Money Gram people, etc., aren't going to like it. These people are making fortunes from this action which is so destructive to our economy.

Tough cookies - if you are making money from illegal activities - then be honorable and stop it.

But don't hold your breath - banks have too much power.

I agree with Beezer, it should be higher. But that is going to to completely against the UN's grand scheme of things, the UN wants the remittance fees lowered so it can transfer wealth faster. I think that it may be time to stop funding the UN's agenda at the expense of American citizens.

Article form 2013.

• GLOBAL VIEWS
• INSIDE DEVELOPMENT

CONTRIBUTOR: WILLIAM LACY SWING

Why migration should be a pillar of the post-2015 development agenda


By William Lacy Swing 03 October 2013

---

Ambassador William Lacy Swing, director-general of the International Organization for Migration. The IOM has been asked by the U.N. General Assembly to examine the contribution of the world's 232 million international migrants and their role in sustainable development. Photo by: IOMThis week, on the heels of its annual meeting, the U.N. General Assembly will convene the Second High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development.

Both meetings focus in large part on the post-2015 development agenda — the global development blueprint that will follow the soon-to-expire Millennium Development Goals.

They also examine the contribution of the world’s 232 million international migrants to the three pillars of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. And they address the need to protect the human rights of migrants, too many of whom still suffer from exploitation, abuse of their human rights and discrimination.

As the global lead agency in the field of migration, IOM has been asked by its 151 member states and the U.N. General Assembly to contribute its thinking on these issues to the HLD, in close collaboration with 15 U.N. partner agencies belonging to the Global Migration Group.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this task. In IOM’s view, international migration is inextricably linked to global poverty reduction, one of the central goals of any development agenda.

Migration is, in fact, one of humanity’s oldest adaptation strategies to escape poverty and seek out opportunities. It can enable individuals to access education, broaden professional opportunities and generate income.

But it is also now an integral part of the global economy, which has come to depend on labor mobility. Migrants energize innovation and entrepreneurship in countries of destination; they care for children, the elderly or the sick; and they keep entire sectors of industry, such as agriculture and hospitality, afloat.

In 2012, international migrants sent home over $400 billion to their families in developing countries — three times the total official aid given by the OECD club of rich countries a year earlier. Remittances flowed from rich countries of the North to poor countries of the South, but also between poor countries of the South, visibly reducing extreme poverty.

Migrants and diasporas — communities of migrants living abroad — also contribute more than just money. IOM’s first Diaspora Ministerial Conference held in June 2013 in Geneva revealed them to be both a bridge between the developed and the developing world, and a potential pool of human, social, cultural and political capital.

IOM’s recognition of the contribution of migrants to both sending and receiving countries is widely shared by its membership. But in times of economic crisis, austerity and high unemployment, public perceptions have often turned against migrants and migration and many have become scapegoats and victims of discrimination and abuse.

The HLD and the post-2015 development agenda represent an opportunity for the U.N. General Assembly to publicly refute the widely held misperception that migration is simply a problem to be solved.

Migration is in fact a powerful tool for development with the same transformative power as trade or technology transfer. It can be managed for the benefit of all through partnerships at all levels, bringing together sending and receiving countries.

The HLD must therefore recognize the relationship between migration and the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development that will form post-2015 U.N. development agenda and set targets for the inclusion of migration in that agenda.

It should also recognize that migrants’ rights will have to be an integral part of all migration and development-related policies and programs, if everyone is to benefit fully from the process.

This is never more important than in times of humanitarian crisis, when the vulnerability of migrants, typified by the exodus from Libya in 2011 or the millions displaced by the Syrian conflict, is shown in stark relief on TV screens around the world.

The HLD therefore also needs to recognize this challenge and consider how the international community can best respond, particularly in the context of the recommendations contained in the Migration Crisis Operational Framework adopted by IOM’s governing council in November 2012.

Against this backdrop, IOM believes that countries of origin, destination and transit should opt for the high road scenario on human mobility at the HLD. They must incorporate migration into their development policies, reduce remittance transfer costs, make legal migration simpler, more accessible and more transparent, and work harder to protect the rights of all migrants, particularly the most vulnerable.

https://www.devex.com/news/why-migra...t-agenda-82009

I agree, let's cut back on our involvement with the -

Well, I should say the UN's involvement in running this country.

Beginning article of this thread has been updated and revised with new title
~~~

By Seth McLaughlin and Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Thursday, March 30, 2017

A group of House Republicans on Thursday introduced the first major bill to fund President Trump’s border wall, saying the government could collect billions of dollars by imposing a 2 percent fee on all the money Mexicans and other immigrants send back home.

Estimates vary, but remittances from those in the U.S. to their relatives back home could top $130 billion a year. A 2 percent tax could net more than $2 billion a year if it applied to all money regardless of who’s sending it.

“This bill is simple — anyone who sends their money to countries that benefit from our porous borders and illegal immigration should be responsible for providing some of the funds needed to complete the wall,” Rep. Mike Rogers, Alabama Republican, said in a statement. “This bill keeps money in the American economy, and most importantly, it creates a funding stream to build the wall.”

Mr. Rogers and Rep. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania are leading the effort.

Mr. Trump has vowed to make Mexico foot the bill for his border wall, but Mexican authorities have said they won’t play along.
Left without a funding source, the president has said American taxpayers will pick up the tab for now, and he’ll look for ways to soak Mexico in the long run.

The World Bank puts remittances from the U.S. at more than $50 billion a year. A Pew Research Center analysis puts the figure at $133 billion in 2015.

Mexico is one of the biggest beneficiaries, with $24 billion alone going from the U.S. to its southern neighbor in 2015, making it one of Mexico’s top sources of income. China and India rounded out the top three countries.

Remittances also account for a huge percentage of the economies of Central American countries.

The U.S. has one of the lowest costs to send money home, at about 6 percent of the payment. Canada’s rate is twice that, while the world’s other big economies hover around 8 percent.

Mr. Trump during the campaign hinted at remittances as one option for footing the bill for his border wall.

But his plan was convoluted, calling for rewriting regulations governing wire transfers and then using it as a threat to force Mexico to cut a check.

Mr. Trump also threatened to cancel visas, hike fees on visas issued to Mexicans or impose a tariff on Mexican goods imported into the U.S. as ways to force Mexico to play ball.

The new congressional bill is much less complicated and would collect funds not just from Mexicans.

It’s already been tried by Oklahoma, which imposes a 1 percent fee on all person-to-person money wire transfers that go outside the state.

Remittances are also a source of money that doesn’t offer much chance for retribution against Americans. Pew said that while $133 billion was shipped abroad in 2015, Americans sent only $7 billion back to the U.S. in remittances that year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...der-wall-bill/