Trump's proposed remittance tax raises alarms among Filipino migrants
LOS ANGELES: For millions of Filipino workers in the United States, sending money back home is more than a financial transaction – it's a vital act of care and survival.
A proposed 3.5 per cent tax on remittances, embedded in the Trump administration's sweeping 'One Big, Beautiful Bill,' has raised alarms among Filipino immigrants who rely on remittances to support families in the Philippines.
If enacted, the tax would take effect on Jan 1, 2026, and apply to remittances sent by non-US citizens, including green card holders and H-1B visa holders.
Aquilina Soriano Versoza, executive director of the Pilipino Workers Center of Southern California (PWC), a grassroots nonprofit that services and organises low-wage and immigrant Filipino communities in the US, warned that the proposed measure would significantly harm the Filipino community.
'This bill will significantly affect Filipino workers who are not only making a living for themselves but also working hard to support their families back home in the Philippines,' she said.
Versoza further criticised the proposal as discriminatory: 'Targeting remittances sent by non-US citizens with increased taxes is a clear act of discrimination that unfairly burdens immigrant communities. Tax policies should be applied equitably to all individuals, regardless of their immigration status.'
The proposed levy comes at a time when many Filipino families in the Philippines are already struggling with inflation and economic instability. For countless households, remittances from Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) spell the difference between financial security and hardship.
Josephine Biclar, a caregiver and worker leader at the Pilipino Workers Center in Los Angeles, shared how inflation has already strained her ability to send money home.
'In our caregiving jobs, no work equals no pay. So right now, we are barely making ends meet, hardly sending anything to the Philippines because of inflation. If there are additional taxes on remittances, there will hardly be any money left to send.'
Remittances are a key pillar of the Philippine economy, accounting for 8.3 per cent of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 7.4 pe cent of Gross National Income (GNI). The United States remains the largest source of these funds.
In 2024, Filipino migrant workers sent a record-breaking $38.34 billion back to the Philippines – an increase of 3 per cent from the previous year, according to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). This growth was driven by both land-based and sea-based workers, highlighting the enduring commitment of OFWs to their families.
Analysts warn that the proposed tax could reduce remittance flows by as much as 5.6 percent, potentially costing the Philippines an estimated $500 million annually. The US plays a central role in remittance transactions, as most remittance centers abroad channel funds through correspondent banks based in the US.
BSP Governor Eli Remolona Jr responded cautiously, saying the central bank is still evaluating the proposed legislation and hopes it will not have a significant negative impact.
Filipino immigrant communities in the US fear the measure will make their already difficult lives even harder. Some worry the tax may push workers to rely on informal and riskier channels to send money home.
Versoza also pointed out logistical and ethical challenges the law could introduce: 'Additionally, money remittance service providers currently do not require information about a sender's immigration or citizenship status. Implementing this bill would not only force these companies to begin verifying this information, it would also raise significant concerns about privacy, data security and potential racial profiling. Singling out non-citizens for additional financial penalties is evidently discriminatory.'
Biclar emphasised how the combined effects of inflation, taxes, and immigration fears are affecting Filipino workers' lives:
'Life for Filipinos in the US is difficult because of inflation and tariffs on remittances. Due to the high cost of living, we are forced to reduce the amount of money we send to our families in the Philippines. Sending money is really affected because even our survival here is a struggle, and if additional taxes are imposed on remittances, where else will we get extra money?'
Beyond the economic impact, advocates warn that the remittance tax is part of a broader legislative package that also includes cuts to social safety nets – measures that could further marginalise immigrant communities.
Biclar also cited growing anxiety among immigrants amid heightened immigration enforcement:
'Aside from tariffs and inflation, the current immigration situation in the US is affecting everyone, not only the undocumented but also those with papers. We have no choice but to slow down at work. It's scary to go out because of ICE raids.'
As the bill continues to face deliberation in the Senate, its final outcome remains unclear. Still, Filipino workers and advocacy groups are preparing for the possibility that the remittance tax could become law – an outcome many believe would deeply undermine the cross-border bonds that sustain Filipino families around the world. - Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
In win for Trump, US Supreme Court limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship order
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. However, the court's 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not let Trump's policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The ruling was written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote, "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." Trump welcomed the ruling in a social media post. "GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court," Trump wrote on Truth Social. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." "The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it," Sotomayor wrote. "Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along." Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. 'ILLEGAL AND CRUEL' The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling troubling, but limited, because lawyers can seek additional protections for potentially affected families. "The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The court's decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order." The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state helped secure the nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle, called Friday's ruling "disappointing on many levels" but stressed that the justices "confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when needed to provide complete relief to the parties." In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors." An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States." Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties - Republican and Democratic - and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
IDF under investigation for alleged war crimes at Gaza aid zones
JERUSALEM: Israel's Military Advocate General has ordered an investigation into possible war crimes over allegations that Israeli forces deliberately fired at Palestinian civilians near Gaza aid distribution sites, Haaretz newspaper reported on Friday. Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed over the past month in the vicinity of areas where food was being handed out, local hospitals and officials have said. Haaretz, a left-leaning Israeli newspaper, quoted unnamed Israeli soldiers as saying they were told to fire at the crowds to keep them back, using unnecessary lethal force against people who appeared to pose no threat. The military told Reuters that the Israel Defence Forces had not instructed soldiers to deliberately shoot at civilians. It added that it was looking to improve "the operational response" in the aid areas and had recently installed new fencing and signs, and opened additional routes to reach the handout zones. Haaretz quoted unnamed sources as saying that the army unit established to review incidents that may involve breaches of international law had been tasked with examining soldiers' actions near aid locations over the past month. The military told Reuters that some incidents were being reviewed by relevant authorities. It added: "Any allegation of a deviation from the law or IDF directives will be thoroughly examined, and further action will be taken as necessary." There is an acute shortage of food and other basic supplies after the nearly two-year-old military campaign by Israel against Hamas fighters in Gaza that has reduced much of the enclave to rubble and displaced most of its two million inhabitants. Thousands of people gather around distribution centres desperately awaiting the next deliveries, but there have been near daily reports of shootings and killings on the approach routes. Medics said six people were killed by gunfire on Friday as they sought to get food in southern Gaza Strip. In all, more than 500 people have died near aid centres operated by the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) or in areas where UN food trucks were set to pass since late May, the Gaza health authorities have said. The unnamed Israeli soldiers told Haaretz that military commanders had ordered troops to shoot at the crowds of Palestinians to disperse them and clear the area. During a closed-door meeting with senior Military Advocate General officials this week, legal representatives rejected IDF claims that the incidents were isolated cases, Haaretz reported. There has been widespread confusion about access to the aid, with the army imposing for a time a 6pm to 6am curfew on approach routes to GHF sites. But locals often have to set out well before dawn to have any chance of retrieving food. The Gaza war began when Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel on Oct 7, 2023, killing nearly 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking 251 others hostage into the enclave. In response, Israel launched a military campaign that has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, the majority of them civilians, according to local health authorities in Gaza.
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
US, China seal framework deal on trade, rare earths in focus
BEIJING: China confirmed Friday details on the framework of a trade deal with the United States, saying Washington would lift "restrictive measures" while Beijing would "review and approve" items under export controls. A top priority for Washington in talks with Beijing had been ensuring the supply of the rare earths essential for products including electric vehicles, hard drives and national defence equipment. China, which dominates global production of the elements, began requiring export licences in early April, a move widely viewed as a response to blistering tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. The two sides agreed after talks in Geneva in May to temporarily lower steep tit-for-tat tariffs on each other's products. China also committed to easing some non-tariff countermeasures but US officials later accused Beijing of violating the pact and slow-walking export licence approvals for rare earths. They eventually agreed on a framework to move forward with their Geneva consensus following talks in London this month. A White House official told AFP on Thursday that the Trump administration and China had "agreed to an additional understanding for a framework to implement the Geneva agreement." That clarification came after the US president told an event that Washington had "just signed" a deal relating to trade with China, without providing further details. Beijing confirmed on Friday that an agreement had been reached. "It is hoped that the United States and China will meet each other halfway," a spokesperson for the commerce ministry said in a statement. It said both sides had "further confirmed the details of the framework." Under the deal, China "will review and approve applications for the export control items that meet the requirements in accordance with the law." "The US side will correspondingly cancel a series of restrictive measures against China," the commerce ministry said. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday that Washington could wrap up its agenda for trade deals by early September, indicating more agreements could be concluded although likely extending past an upcoming deadline. Speaking to Fox Business ahead of a July 9 deadline for steeper US duties to kick in on dozens of economies, Bessent reiterated that there are 18 key partners Washington is focused on pacts with. "If we can ink 10 or 12 of the important 18, there are another important 20 relationships, then I think we could have trade wrapped up by Labour Day," Bessent said. That holiday falls on September 1. About the July date, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg Television on Thursday that "we're going to do top 10 deals, put them in the right category, and then these other countries will fit behind." Countries have been moving to negotiate and reach trade pacts with Washington to avoid further tariff hikes following a 10 per cent levy Trump imposed on most trading partners in April. Wall Street's major indexes bounced on hopes for deals with China and others. The broad-based S&P 500 hit a new record in a stunning comeback from lows in April, while most stock markets rose in Europe and Asia indexes were mixed. The White House suggested Thursday that the Trump administration could extend the July deadline. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday: "Perhaps it could be extended, but that's a decision for the president to make." She added: "The deadline is not critical." "The president can simply provide these countries with a deal if they refuse to make us one by the deadline," she said.
