
Funds from migrants sent back home help fuel some towns' economies. A GOP plan targets that.
'People here, they don't live luxuriously, but they live off remittances,' Vail said.
House Republicans have included in President Trump's big priority bill a 5% excise tax on remittance transfers that would cover more than 40 million people, including green card holders and nonimmigrant visa holders, such as people on H-1B, H-2A and H-2B visas. US citizens would be exempt.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Trump also recently announced that he is finalizing a presidential memorandum to 'shut down remittances' sent by people in the US illegally. White House and Treasury officials have not responded to requests for comment from The Associated Press on specifics of the presidential memorandum that Trump previewed in an April 25 Truth Social post and how it would work.
Advertisement
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum shot back on the measure and called on Republican lawmakers to reconsider it, saying it 'would damage the economy of both nations and is also contrary to the spirit of economic freedom that the US government claims to defend.'
Advertisement
'Remittances are the fruit of the efforts of those who, through their honest work, strengthen not only the Mexican economy but also the United States', which is why we consider this measure to be arbitrary and unjust,' she said in a morning press briefing.
Remittance experts, local leaders and former migrants say that banning, limiting or adding a tax on certain remittances could damage communities that rely on them, prove burdensome to American citizens and firms and, paradoxically, end up causing even more illegal migration to the US.
The influx of money provides an important economic lifeline to residents of poorer towns that often have little access to jobs or income. Remittances provide opportunities for people in their home country, making it less likely they would take the risk of migrating to the United States, the experts say.
'Any measure to reduce remittances will have a negative impact on the US national interest,' said Manuel Orozco, director of the Migration, Remittances, and Development Program at the Inter-American Dialogue. 'It will have an effect on the homeland.'
Proponents of efforts to target remittances say they are an effective tax on people in the US illegally and could be a revenue generator for the US government.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for less immigration, acknowledges that limiting, banning or taxing remittances would make it more difficult for immigrants in the US illegally.
'One of the main reasons people come here is to work and send money home,' Krikorian said. 'If that's much more difficult to do, it becomes less appealing to come here.'
Advertisement
Legislation to control remittances — through taxes on money transfers, both internationally and domestically — has been proposed in 18 states in the past few years. Almost all of those efforts have been voted down.
The exception is Oklahoma, which in 2009 passed a tax on remittances: a $5 fee on any wire transfer under $500 and 1% on any amount in excess of $500.
Steven Yates, who is now a senior research fellow at the Heritage Institute, wrote for the America First Policy Institute that every state should adopt this policy as a way to combat the impact of illegal immigration.
Other high-ranking Trump administration officials have also supported efforts to tighten controls on remittances. Vice President JD Vance, as an Ohio senator in 2023, co-sponsored the WIRED Act, which would have imposed a 10% fee on remittances out of the US.
The intention of the bill — which would allow people who could prove their citizenship to get the fee back as a refundable tax credit — was 'penalizing illicit activity, such as drug and human smuggling.' The bill did not make it out of committee.
'This legislation is a common sense solution to disincentivize illegal immigration and reduce the cartels' financial power,' Vance said at the time of the bill's introduction.
According to the World Bank, remittances sent to home countries in 2023 totaled about $656 billion — equivalent to the gross domestic product of Belgium. The money that Mexican migrants send home to their relatives grew by 7.6% in 2023 to reach a record $63.3 billion for the year.
Remittances are also a major factor in the global economy, often sent from American wire services rather than banks and credit unions. India, Mexico and China are the biggest recipients of those funds, according to the World Bank.
Advertisement
In response to the proposal to tax remittances in the new Republican House bill, Orozco said, 'Some senders would find ways to send money differently, through unauthorized channels. Others would send less.'
'Sending less would have an impact on the receiving households, limiting the capacity to save, and in turn may increase the intention to migrate,' said Orozco, who also serves as a senior fellow at Harvard University's Center for International Development.
In Cajolá, local leaders say the remittance flow has stopped young people from migrating because they see economic opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have. Vail said losing that lifeline would deal a devastating blow to families like his and even cause his small business to fold.
'There's a lot of fear,' Vail said. 'Fear that for the people that live here in Guatemala, there won't be work because the businesses will be all gone.'
He said his business has already been struggling since Trump took office and his sales of things like eggs, beans, sugar and more have dipped.
'When Donald Trump won, many people stopped sending remittances or they began to save money,' he said. 'Business dropped off a lot.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Los Angeles Times
34 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
The legal issues raised by Trump sending the National Guard to L.A.
The Trump administration announced Saturday that National Guard troops were being sent to Los Angeles — an action Gov. Gavin Newsom said he opposed. President Trump is activating the Guard by using powers that have been invoked only rarely. Trump said in a memo to the Defense and Homeland Security departments that he was calling the National Guard into federal service under a provision called Title 10 to 'temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions.' Title 10 provides for activating National Guard troops for federal service. Such Title 10 orders can be used for deploying National Guard members in the United States or abroad. Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the nation's leading constitutional law scholars, said 'for the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling.' 'It is using the military domestically to stop dissent,' said Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. 'It certainly sends a message as to how this administration is going to respond to protests. It is very frightening to see this done.' Tom Homan, the Trump administration's 'border czar,' announced the plan to send the National Guard in an interview on Fox News on Saturday as protesters continued confronting immigration agents during raids. 'This is about enforcing the law,' Homan said. 'We're not going to apologize for doing it. We're stepping up.' 'We're already ahead of the game. We were already mobilizing,' he added. 'We're gonna bring the National Guard in tonight. We're gonna continue doing our job. We're gonna push back on these people.' Newsom criticized the federal action, saying that local law enforcement was already mobilized and that sending in troops was a move that was 'purposefully inflammatory' and would 'only escalate tensions.' The governor called the president and they spoke for about 40 minutes, according to the governor's office. Critics have raised concerns that Trump also might try to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to activate troops as part of his campaign to deport large numbers of undocumented immigrants. The president has the authority under the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard units of states to suppress 'any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy' that 'so hinders the execution of the laws' that any portion of the state's inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right. The American Civil Liberties Union has warned that Trump's use of the military domestically would be misguided and dangerous. According to the ACLU, Title 10 activation of National Guard troops has historically been rare and Congress has prohibited troops deployed under the law from providing 'direct assistance' to civilian law enforcement — under both a separate provision of Title 10 as well as the Posse Comitatus Act. The Insurrection Act, however, is viewed as an exception to the prohibitions under the Posse Comitatus Act. In 1958, President Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court's decision ending racial segregation in schools, and to defend Black students against a violent mob. Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, wrote in a recent article that if Trump were to invoke the Insurrection Act 'to activate federalized troops for mass deportation — whether at the border or somewhere else in the country — it would be unprecedented, unnecessary, and wrong.' Chemerinsky said invoking the Insurrection Act and nationalizing a state's National Guard has been reserved for extreme circumstances where there are no other alternatives to maintain the peace. Chemerinsky said he feared that in this case the Trump administration was seeking 'to send a message to protesters of the willingness of the federal government to use federal troops to quell protests.' In 1992, California Gov. Pete Wilson requested that President George H.W. Bush use the National Guard to quell the unrest in Los Angeles after police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. That was under a different provision of federal law that allows the president to use military force in the United States. That provision applies if a state governor or legislature requests it. California politics editor Phil Willon contributed to this report.

38 minutes ago
Trump attends UFC championship fight in NJ, taking a break from politics, Musk feud
NEWARK, N.J. -- President Donald Trump walked out to a thunderous standing ovation just ahead of the start of the UFC pay-per-view card at the Prudential Center on Saturday night, putting his public feud with tech billionaire Elon Musk on hold to instead watch the fierce battles inside the cage. Trump was accompanied by UFC President Dana White and the pair headed to their cageside seats to Kid Rock's 'American Bad Ass.' Trump and White did the same for UFC's card last November at Madison Square Garden, only then they were joined by Musk. Trump shook hands with fans and supporters — a heavyweight lineup that included retired boxing champion Mike Tyson — on his way to the cage. Trump was joined by his daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, along with son Eric Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Trump shook hands with the UFC broadcast team that included Joe Rogan. Rogan hosted Trump on his podcast for hours in the final stages of the campaign last year. UFC fans went wild for Trump and held mobile devices in their outstretched arms to snap pictures of him. Trump arrived in time for the start of a card set to include two championship fights. Julianna Peña and Merab Dvalishvili were scheduled to each defend their 135-pound championships. UFC fighter Kevin Holland won the first fight with Trump in the building, scaled the cage and briefly chatted with the President before his post-fight interview.

43 minutes ago
LA immigration protests live updates: Trump deploys 2,000 National Guard members
California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the move "purposefully inflammatory." 1:20 The Trump administration is deploying the California National Guard in response to protests in Los Angeles that begin Friday evening over immigration enforcement operations that have resulted in some clashes between demonstrators and authorities, the White House said in a statement. President Donald Trump signed a memorandum "deploying 2,000 National Guardsmen to address the lawlessness" in California as demonstrations opposing Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations continue in the state, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Saturday evening. Earlier Saturday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the federal government was moving to "take over the California National Guard," calling the move "purposefully inflammatory" and saying it will "only escalate tensions." 6 minutes ago Hegseth says National Guard being mobilized immediately, active-duty Marines on 'high alert' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Defense Department is "mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles." Hegseth said if violence continues, "active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert." The memo that President Donald Trump signed Saturday night directing the National Guard to California said that the current protests "constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." Trump utilized his authority under "10 U.S.C. 12406 to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel," according to the memo. The presidential memorandum also said that the 2,000 service members could be deployed for 60 days or "at the discretion" of the defense secretary. The memo adds that the secretary of defense "may employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary to augment and support the protection of Federal functions and property in any number determined appropriate in his discretion."