Thread: US signs historic deal with El Salvador and Honduras for remittance securitization

Does this prove that the administration is fully compliant with illegal immigration They have hatched a plan that allows countries to get loans based on the amount of money that will sent by their migrants home from the US. All part of the greater plan to reditribute the wealth of the US to "other" needy nations.

Do US citizens families suffer economically and socially so that the governments of these third world countries can build bridges and infrastructure?


US signs historic deal with El Salvador and Honduras for remittance securitization

Submitted by Sanket Mohapatra on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 12:09


The United States has recently signed separate Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with El Salvador and Honduras to assist them in securitizing their future remittance receipts to raise financing for infrastructure and development projects.

Under the Building Remittance Investment for Development, Growth, and Entrepreneurship (BRIDGE) initiative, banks in these countries will leverage their future remittance receipts to raise lower-cost and longer-term financing in international capital markets to fund infrastructure, public works, and commercial development initiatives (see press release).

In a speech in New York City on September 22, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained how BRIDGE would work to raise critically needed development funding:

“…Now, if they [migrants] send these remittances through the formal financial system, they create huge funding flows that are orders of magnitude larger than any development assistance we can dream of. By harnessing the potential of remittances, BRIDGE will make it easier for communities in El Salvador and Honduras to get the financing they need to build roads and bridges, for example, to support entrepreneurs, to make loans, to bring more people into the financial system…..Through BRIDGE and its in-country partners, local banks will be able to leverage their remittance flows….With the leverage from remittances, the local banks will be able to get lower-cost, longer-term financing for investments in infrastructure projects and small businesses.”

The financing structure proposed under BRIDGE is similar to that used by banks in several remittance-receiving countries such as Brazil, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Peru and Turkey, to raise over $15 billion in international financing during the last decade (see previous work on this topic by my colleagues Dilip Ratha and Suhas Ketkar on securitization of future-flow receivables and new paths to funding).

The BRIDGE initiative provides an excellent application of innovative financing instruments leveraging on migration and remittances. The World Bank group has recently become involved in this area. The International Finance Corporation has recently provided up to $30 million debt financing for securitizing the significant remittances of El Salvadorans working abroad to raise financing for a credit cooperative Fedecredito. These additional resources will be used to increase lending to micro-entrepreneurs and low-income people in the country.
Increasingly the Bank is receiving requests to assist countries to raise funds through diaspora bonds.

GO TO THIS SITE AND READ EVERYTHING THERE AND UNDERSTAND WHY THE GLOBALISTS WILL NOT DEPORT THE ILLEGAL ALIENS.

US signs historic deal with El Salvador and Honduras for remittance securitization | A blog about migration, remittances, and development

Press Release

22 September 2010

U.S. BRIDGE Initiative Commitments with El Salvador, Honduras


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
September 22, 2010
MEDIA NOTE


U.S. BRIDGE Initiative Commitments with El Salvador and Honduras
On September 22, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton signed separate Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with Honduran President Porfirio Lobo and Salvadoran Foreign Minister Hugo Martinez outlining the United States’ commitment to the Building Remittance Investment for Development Growth and Entrepreneurship (BRIDGE) Initiative in Honduras and El Salvador.


Led by the Department of State’s Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs, the United States has committed through the BRIDGE Initiative to work with El Salvador and Honduras to develop and support partnerships with strong and reliable in-country financial institutions to maximize the development impact of remittance flows from the U.S. and to help establish strong foundations for sustainable, inclusive, and transformational economic growth.


Remittances have the potential to be a transformational asset in meeting the development goals of the Latin America region as they can enable greater access to the types of long-term capital required for the multi-year investments that will sustain growth. The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) estimates that U.S. $50 billion in worker remittances flow from the U.S. to Latin America and the Caribbean annually.


Under the BRIDGE Initiative, strong in-country financial institutions in Honduras and El Salvador will be able to partner with the United States and multilateral partners to help explore options to use their remittance flows safely and soundly as an asset to raise lower-cost and longer-term financing for infrastructure, public works, and commercial development initiatives that are currently lacking in these countries. USAID-supported market assessments confirmed the feasibility of BRIDGE’s goals in Honduras and El Salvador.


Based on previous successful efforts in Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, BRIDGE will not impact the basic transfer of remittances. The millions of households in El Salvador and Honduras that depend on remittances as income and for basic daily living expenses will not see their regular payments disrupted by this effort.

Read more: U.S. BRIDGE Initiative Commitments with El Salvador, Honduras

Two questions....

One, what is a " Memorandums of Understanding " ?

Two, who signed this?

W

U.S. BRIDGE Initiative Commitments with El Salvador and Honduras
On September 22, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton signed separate Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with Honduran President Porfirio Lobo and Salvadoran Foreign Minister Hugo Martinez outlining the United States’ commitment to the Building Remittance Investment for Development Growth and Entrepreneurship (BRIDGE) Initiative in Honduras and El Salvador.

In public international law

In international relations, MoUs fall under the broad category of treaties and should be registered in the United Nations treaty database.^[1] In practice and in spite of the United Nations' Legal Section insistence that registration be done to avoid 'secret diplomacy,' MoUs are sometimes kept confidential. As a matter of law, the title of MoU does not necessarily mean the document is binding or not binding under international law. To determine whether or not a particular MoU is meant to be a legally binding document (i.e. a treaty), one needs to examine the intent of the parties as well as the position of the signatories (e.g. Minister of Foreign Affairs vs Minister of Environment). A careful analysis of the wording will also clarify the exact nature of the document. The International Court of Justice has provided some insight into the determination of the legal status of a document in the landmark case of Qatar v. Bahrain, 1 July 1994.
Memorandum of understanding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guidance on Non-Binding Documents

Governments frequently wish to record in writing the terms of an understanding or arrangement between them without, by so doing, creating obligations that would be binding under international law. The language, titles, and techniques used for this purpose vary considerably. While not binding under international law, a non-binding instrument may carry significant moral or political weight. Such instruments are often used in our international relations to establish political commitments.

Ambiguity as to whether or not a document is legally binding should be avoided. When negotiating a nonbinding instrument, both/all sides should confirm their understanding that the instrument does not give rise to binding obligations under international law.

Certain formal, stylistic, and linguistic features tend to be associated with agreements binding under international law, while other features tend to reflect an intention on the part of the participants to produce an arrangement of a purely political nature. In order to avoid ambiguity, we offer the following general guidance:

• With respect to the title of a non-binding document, negotiators should avoid using the terms “treaty” or “agreement.” While the use of a title such as “Memorandum of Understanding” is common for non-binding documents, we caution that simply calling a document a “Memorandum of Understanding” does not automatically denote for the United States that the document is non-binding under international law. The United States has entered into MOU’s that we consider to be binding international agreements.

• We advise negotiators to avoid using the term “Parties” in non-binding documents. Rather, we encourage the use of other terms such as “Participants.”

• With respect to the actions to be taken, we advise that negotiators avoid terms such as “shall”, “agree”, or “undertake.” In many cases, we have urged that terms such as “should” or “intend to” or “expect to” be utilized in a non-binding document.

• We further advise that negotiators avoid use of the term “entry into force” and consider expressing that the document “is to come into operation” or that “activities are to commence” for the “participants.”

• We advise that negotiators avoid jurat clauses that state: “Done at” or “Concluded at”.

• While non-binding documents may be translated into different language versions, we advise that non-binding documents do not mention or reference the “equal authenticity” of different language versions.

• Finally, depending on the circumstances, it may be useful for a non-binding document to include a disclaimer in the text of the document expressly providing that it is not legally binding under international law.

United States practice on non-binding documents may differ from that of other countries. For example, the mere fact that a document is called a “Memorandum of Understanding” does not mean that the document automatically is considered non-binding for the United States. Also, for the United States, the use of the verb “will” in the text does not necessarily mean that the commitment at issue is not legally binding under international law. Because the use of the term “will” may lead to confusion as to the intention of the participants, the Office of Treaty Affairs generally recommends that this term be avoided in non-binding documents.

The Office of Treaty Affairs encourages agencies and offices to share the texts of proposed non-binding documents with the office, which is responsible by law for determining whether a particular document is a binding “international agreement” for purposes of reporting to Congress. Our determination is made on the basis of a number of criteria, including the identity and mutual intention of those entities involved, rather than simply the form or title of the document.

State Department website:

Guidance on Non-Binding Documents

Economic crisis is hurting the flow of remittances to Latin America


por Mariana Cristancho-Ahn, Univision News
Fecha: 12/02/2011






Latinos living in the U.S. are sending less money back to their home countries in Latin America due to the economic slowdown

Growth in the flow of remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean during 2011 was lower than expected due to the United States' economic slowdown and the global financial crisis, said the World Bank in its latest report about remittances.

The report analyzed data available until the third quarter of 2011 for Mexico, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, and Nicaragua, which together account for three-quarters of remittance flow to the Latin American and Caribbean region. 



The World Bank forecast that the region would receive a total of $61B in remittances in 2011, a number higher than the $57B it received in 2009 and 2010, but lower than the $64B in remittance inflows from 2008.

The study shows that remittance inflows to Latin American grew by nearly 7% in the first three-quarters of 2011.



Remittances to Mexico surged 11% in the third-quarter of 2011. The depreciation of the Mexican peso relative to the U.S. dollar contributed to the surge. Mexico is the largest recipient of remittances in Latin America and the third largest in the world. For 2011, the World Bank forecast that Mexico will receive $24B in remittances.

After Mexico, Guatemala ($4.5B), Colombia ($4.3B), Brazil ($4.3B), and El Salvador ($3.7B) are the largest recipients of remittances in Latin America. However, as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010, the largest remittance recipients in the region are El Salvador (15.7% of GDP), Jamaica (15.2%), Honduras (15.1%), Guyana (13%), and Nicaragua (11.7%). “Smaller countries in the region tend to receive more remittances as a share of their GDP, in part because of their higher emigration rates,” says the Word Bank.

The U.S. is the largest source of remittances for developing countries in Latin America with Western Europe, primarily Spain, coming in second.

“Persistent unemployment in Europe and the U.S. is affecting employment prospects of existing migrants and hardening political attitudes toward new immigration,” says the study. “Volatile exchange rates and uncertainty about the direction of oil prices also present further risks to the outlook for remittances.”



Unemployment among Hispanics in the U.S. reached 11.4% in November, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Economic crisis is hurting the flow of remittances to Latin America - Univision News

From 2003
First Data and Its Congressman Clash Over U.S. Immigration
First Data owns Western Union, which made made $1.1 billion in 2004 from money transfers including immigrant remittancess sent back to their home countries. The company is therefore no friend of Rep. Tom Tancredo, who believes that the nation's border and immigration laws should be enforced. First Data in fact donated to Tancredo's opponent, Joanna Conti, in 2004. Furthermore, Tancredo has suggested taxing remittances, although not with any great fervor. But any cut into remittances would likely decrease First Data's enormous profits.
LTG: Remittances Increasingly a Part of the Globalized Economy

How nice for Latin America, however, this takes many millions of dollars out of the U.S. economy each year. That money needs to be earned by Americans and spent in the U.S.

The part that bothers me is that the US is participating in a program that lends governments money based on how much money is sent home by their mostly illegal "migrants" in the form of remittances while refusing to enforce out immigration laws.

The message to me is :The more money your "migrants" send home from the US, the more money we will lend to your government based on your anticipated income". That just means the more migrants" that they manage to get into the US sending money back, the more money they can borrow.
Lately it sems there have been reports of groups of illegals from Honduras and El Salvador coming through Mexico.