What the proposed U.S. remittance fee means for immigrants and their families back home
A new bill, the Border Security Investment Act introduced in the United States House of Representatives, aims to strengthen border security by imposing a steep fee on remittances sent by immigrants.
A new bill in the U.S. House of Representatives seeks to impose a 37% fee on remittances sent to the top five countries with the most unlawful entries into the U.S.
The bill, named the Border Security Investment Act (H.R. 445), aims to use the revenue generated to strengthen border security measures.
Affected countries will be determined annually by U.S. Customs and Border Protection based on the latest entry data.
If the Border Security Investment Act is passed, the proposal could have significant consequences for immigrants in the United States and the economies of countries that heavily rely on these remittances.
The Border Security Investment Act (H.R. 445) proposes a 37% fee on remittances sent through money services businesses to the top five countries whose citizens or nationals had the most unlawful entries into the United States as determined by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
However, the bill does not specify which countries these are; instead, it mandates that CBP annually identify these countries based on the latest data.
It's important to note that the list of countries subject to the remittance fee can change annually, reflecting shifts in migration patterns and enforcement data.
Therefore, individuals and businesses involved in remittance transfers should regularly review CBP's reports to stay informed about any changes that may impact their transactions.
The Bill
The Border Security Investment Act, sponsored by Rep. Nathaniel Moran and co-sponsored by six other Republican representatives, targets remittances sent through money services businesses to the five countries with the highest number of citizens or nationals unlawfully entering the U.S. in the previous fiscal year, as determined by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The bill aims to impose a 37% fee on these remittance transfers.
This bill is distinct from the WIRED Act (Withholding Illegal Revenue Entering Drug Markets), introduced by Rep. Kevin Hern in 2022, which proposed a 5% fee on remittances to combat illegal immigration and cartel activities.
While both bills aim to fund border security, the Border Security Investment Act targets a broader group of countries and enacts a much higher fee compared to the WIRED Act.
What does this mean for African dependents
The proposed bill targets countries with the highest number of unlawful U.S. entries, though it does not specify the affected nations.
Historically, both Latin American and African countries, particularly since Donald Trump's presidency, have been impacted by U.S. immigration policies.
According to recent U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) statistics, nationals from countries such as Egypt, Mauritania, Senegal, Uzbekistan, and India have been encountered at the U.S. southern border, indicating potential inclusion in the list .
Business Insider Africa recently highlighted African countries that topped the U.S. immigration deportation list in 2024 and according to the U.S. ICE Annual Report for 2024, several African nations were listed among those whose citizens faced multiple infractions, making them inadmissible or subject to deportation.
Given the significant number of African removals, it is likely that some African countries will be included among the top five nations affected by this bill.
If passed, this could have a substantial impact on African dependents who rely on remittances from relatives in the U.S., as the proposed 37% fee on remittances could reduce the financial support that many families rely on for everyday living expenses, healthcare, and education.
Supporters of the proposed fee argue it would fund efforts to curb illegal immigration, but opponents say it unfairly targets legal residents and ignores the root causes of migration, like poverty and violence.
The tax could severely affect low-income African households that depend on remittances for essentials such as food, school fees, rent, and medical expenses.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
East Africa Metals Announces Non-Brokered Private Placement
Vancouver, British Columbia--(Newsfile Corp. - June 4, 2025) - East Africa Metals Inc. (TSXV: EAM) ("East Africa Metals" or the "Company") is pleased to announce a non-brokered private placement to raise gross proceeds of CAD$5,522,000 through the sale of 50,200,000 common shares at the price of CAD$0.11 per share. The private placement involves an investment by a strategic investor, reflecting confidence in the Company's African assets and growth prospects. On closing, the investor will hold approximately 19.9% of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company. All securities issued will be subject to a four-month hold period from the date of issuance. The Company plans to allocate the proceeds from the private placement toward advancing its projects in both Ethiopia and Tanzania, legal, accounting, marketing and general working capital purposes. No commissions or finder's fees will be paid by the Company in connection with the private placement. The private placement remains subject to approval by the TSX-V. This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any of the securities in the United States. The securities have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or any state securities laws and may not be offered or sold within the United States or to or for the account or benefit of a U.S. person (as defined in Regulation S under the United States Securities Act) unless registered under the U.S. Securities Act and applicable state securities laws or an exemption from such registration is available. About East Africa Metals The Company's principal assets include a 30% Net Profits Interest in the Mato Bula and Da Tambuk mines (collectively "Adyabo Property") and a 70% project interest in the Harvest polymetallic VMS Exploration Project in the Tigray Region of Ethiopia. In addition, the Company has a 30% Net Streaming Interest in the Magambazi Mine in the Tanga Region of Tanzania. EAM has invested US$66.8M in African exploration since 2005 and has identified a total of 2.8 million ounces of gold and gold-equivalent resources representing an average discovery cost per ounce of US$24. More information on the Company can be viewed at the Company's website: For further information contact:Nick Watters, Business DevelopmentTelephone +1 (604) 488-0822Email investors@ Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information This news release contains "forward-looking information" within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. Generally, forward-looking information can be identified using forward-looking terminology such as "anticipate", "believe", "plan", "expect", "intend", "estimate", "forecast", "project", "budget", "schedule", "may", "will", "could", "might", "should", "indicate" or variations of such words or similar words or expressions. Forward-looking information is based on reasonable assumptions that have been made by East Africa as at the date of such information and is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements of East Africa to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information, including but not limited to: timing of receipt of mining permit; timing of mining development; projected heap leach recoveries ; early exploration; the closing of the agreement with the exploration and development company to advance the Magambazi Project or identify any other corporate opportunities for the Company; mineral exploration and development; metal and mineral prices; availability of capital; accuracy of East Africa's projections and estimates, including the initial mineral resource for the Adyabo, Harvest and Magambazi Properties; interest and exchange rates; competition; stock price fluctuations; availability of drilling equipment and access; actual results of current exploration activities; government regulation; political or economic developments; foreign taxation risks; environmental risks; insurance risks; capital expenditures; operating or technical difficulties in connection with development activities; personnel relations; the speculative nature of strategic metal exploration and development including the risks of diminishing quantities of grades of reserves; contests over title to properties; and changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined, as well as those risk factors set out in in East Africa's management's discussion and analysis for the three months and nine months ended December 31, 2024 and for the year ended March 31, 2024, and East Africa's listing application dated July 8, 2013. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. The contained gold, copper and silver figures shown are in situ. No assurance can be given that the estimated quantities will be produced. Forward-looking statements are based on assumptions management believes to be reasonable, including but not limited to the timely closing of the financing; the ability of East Africa's operating partner in Tanzania to reactivate the mining operations at Magambazi or the success of East Africa to recover the Magambazi project from the operating partner and engagement of new operating partners; the price of gold, silver, copper and zinc; the demand for gold, silver, copper and zinc; the ability to carry on exploration and development activities; the timely receipt of any required approvals; the ability to obtain qualified personnel, equipment and services in a timely and cost-efficient manner; the ability to operate in a safe, efficient and effective manner; the renewal or extension of exploration Licenses; the regulatory framework regarding environmental matters, and such other assumptions and factors as set out herein. Although East Africa has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such information. The Company does not update or revise forward looking information even if new information becomes available unless legislation requires the Company do so. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information contained herein, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. Not for Distribution or Dissemination in The United States or to U.S. Newswire Services To view the source version of this press release, please visit Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
I'm conservative and I agree with Elon Musk. Trump's big bill is a big mess.
I'm old enough to remember when Republicans believed passing thousand-page bills in the middle of the night was unacceptable. But that's exactly how the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed the United States House of Representatives. Once again, those of us who believe in limited government and fiscal sanity are expected to "compromise" as Washington sends the clear message that it has no intention of taxing and spending in any coherent fashion. The measure heading for the U.S. Senate isn't without positives. Tax stabilization is excellent policy. When our leaders whipsaw the tax code back and forth, lobbyists and special interests win. American families lose. To that end, extending the 2017 individual tax cuts makes sense. Americans should keep more of their hard-earned money. Opinion: Latinos benefited from Trump's tax cuts. Here's why they should be extended I could even understand Republicans caving on state and local tax (SALT) provisions that essentially reward liberal states for their burdensome tax regimes. If the price for extending broad-based tax cuts is giving New York and California a win, I might be able to hold my nose and push it through. But Republicans have yet again ignored what those tax cuts must mean for spending. More specifically, they shouldn't spend what they don't have. Nowhere is the future blueprint for American indebtedness more apparent than at the literal end of this legislative monstrosity. The last four words of the bill are 'is increased by $4,000,000,000,000.' The debt limit, that is. Why on earth would Republicans need to up the debt limit by that much if they didn't intend to use it? Maybe it's a coincidence that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Big Beautiful Budget Buster will add about $3 trillion to the national debt. The truth is, it's actually worse than that. As a former Capitol Hill attorney, I'll let you in on a little secret: Washington politicians lie with something called 'the budget window.' Typically, CBO estimates the financial impacts of legislation over 10 years. Politicians load spending and tax cuts in the near-term and push the savings to the out years. According to the CBO, House Republicans have done exactly that … again. More: Trump proposes banning states from regulating AI. Could it affect Tennessee's ELVIS Act? The legislation contains "enhancements" – a classic D.C. euphemism for "more of your money" – across the board. Title II, for instance, throws billions at the Department of Defense for everything from "improving the quality of life for military personnel" (Sec. 20001), to shipbuilding (Sec. 20002) and air superiority (Sec. 20007). We've even got $75 million to buy anti-lock brakes for Army wheeled transport vehicles (Sec. 20010). While a strong defense is paramount, the lack of serious discussion about offsetting any of these new spending items is, as usual, deafening. Then there's Title VII with significant outlays for "Border barrier system construction" (Sec. 60001) and a surge in U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel (Sec. 60002). Title VII, under the Committee on the Judiciary, earmarks funds for increased "Adult alien detention capacity" (Sec. 70101) and the hiring of more U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel (Sec. 70103). Border security is critical, no doubt. But the price tag attached in this bill seems to balloon without any corresponding fiscal trade-offs. And some of it is just weird. The legislation provides $813 million for 'the lease or acquisition of additional marked [Customs and Border Protection vehicles] (Section 60002(d)). Let's assume these are exceptionally nice vehicles at $100,000 each. That's 8,130 vehicles over the next several years. Are we trying to build the wall out of squad cars? Now, let's dig a little deeper into the tax provisions in Title XI, charmingly subtitled "The One, Big, Beautiful Bill" within the larger "One Big Beautiful Bill.' The House Ways and Means Committee folks clearly want to let us know where the real action happens. The tax sections include, among other goodies of limited application, an "Enhanced deduction for seniors" (Sec. 110103), a provision for "No tax on car loan interest" (Sec. 110104), 'No tax on tips' (Sec. 110101) and 'MAGA Accounts' (Sec. 110115, Sec. 110116), which have been renamed 'Trump Accounts.' Remember when Republicans used to say the government had no business picking economic winners and losers? We've clearly moved past that sentiment. Carving out tax exceptions creates an uneven playing field and complicates an already labyrinthine tax code. More: Advocates for kids, seniors, people with disabilities protest Trump's plan to cut Medicaid It also raises questions about fairness. Why should tip income be treated differently than wages earned by someone in a non-tipped profession? The Trump Accounts are tax-deferred investment accounts with the federal government seeding $1,000 into accounts for a small cohort of newborns. I'm all for kids learning to save and invest, but I thought we were done handing out random government checks after the COVID-19 pandemic. I wish I could tell you that Republicans are putting us on a different fiscal trajectory, but the best they've done is something akin to Democrat Light – all the debt on half the spending. The "One Big Beautiful Bill" certainly lives up to its name in one respect: It is, indeed, big. Whether it's beautiful depends on whether you're the one left holding the bill. For those of us who believe that generational theft via national debt is wrong, this is simply the next unfortunate chapter in America's unrelenting addiction to spending beyond its means. USA TODAY Network Tennessee Columnist Cameron Smith is a Memphis-born, Brentwood-raised recovering political attorney raising four boys in Nolensville, Tennessee, with his particularly patient wife, Justine. Direct outrage or agreement to or @DCameronSmith on Twitter. Agree or disagree? Send a letter to the editor to letters@ This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Musk on Big Beautiful Bill is right. Trump's plan sucks | Opinion
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Marjorie Taylor Greene sounds alarm over AI provision in One Big Beautiful Bill Act: 'I would have voted NO if I had known'
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who voted to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the House last month, slammed a provision of the proposal on Tuesday, noting that if she had realized it was in the measure, she would have voted against passage. The provision Greene is sounding the alarm about would significantly restrict states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. "Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, any law or regulation of that State or a political subdivision thereof limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce," the provision reads, in part. Greene disclosed in a post on X that she did not know about that provision of the proposal when she voted to pass the measure last month. "Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years. I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there," she noted in the tweet on Tuesday. "We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states hands is potentially dangerous. This needs to be stripped out in the Senate. When the OBBB comes back to the House for approval after Senate changes, I will not vote for it with this in it. We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power. Not the other way around. Especially with rapidly developing AI that even the experts warn they have no idea what it may be capable of," Greene added. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., responded to Greene's post by tweeting, "You have one job. To. Read. The. F[---]ing. Bill." "Maybe instead of doing this you should have read the bill," conservative commentator Dana Loesch tweeted in response to Greene's comments. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act runs a bit more than 1,000 pages long. Greene told Fox News Digital during a phone call on Wednesday that if she ever ceases to be "humble as a representative and willing to publicly admit that maybe I've made a mistake … then I shouldn't be a representative." But the congresswoman explained that she believes that "this is a far more important discussion than Marjorie admitted that she missed reading a little clause" lodged within the lengthy bill. Greene said that she believes she should have "been able to trust Republicans, that we wouldn't be destroying federalism in the One Big Beautiful Bill. That was what I didn't expect. Because, state rights, that's federalism. And Republicans are focused on reducing federal government power and protecting state rights. However, this bill literally destroys state rights for 10 years … destroys federalism." She said that regardless of which party is "in charge … this is something that we just can't allow to happen." On Tuesday, business tycoon Elon Musk blasted both the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the lawmakers who voted to pass it. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it," he tweeted.
