Where the Money Goes: Map, Charts Show Migrant Remittance Payments
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
A provision in President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" making its way through the United States Congress would place additional taxes on money immigrants want to send back to their home countries.
In 2023, the last full year of data available, over $650 billion was received in remittances by countries worldwide. Roughly a third of that comes from the U.S., with countries with high levels of immigration to American benefitting most from the payments.
Republicans in Congress want to recoup some of the money migrant workers in America are sending home, arguing the money should remain circulating within the U.S. economy. Those opposing the move, and some who have studied remittances for years, argue that a remittance tax could drive up immigration to the U.S. rather than hinder it.
"Undocumented migrants play a huge role in the U.S. economy, not only as they participate in the labor force, and part of this is that they do send money back home, but a large number of them actually do pay taxes," Rubi Bledsoe, a research associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) told Newsweek.
"They also participate in supporting social programs that Americans get access to, without necessarily being able to access them themselves."
Bledsoe argued that if remittances aren't being sent back to family and friends, or if the funds are reduced, then those who depend on them may look to come to the U.S. for work as well.
Which Countries Benefit From Remittances?
A person holds cash in his hand next to Western Union signs at a Florida Check Cashing window inside a convenience store in Miami, Florida, on January 12, 2023.
A person holds cash in his hand next to Western Union signs at a Florida Check Cashing window inside a convenience store in Miami, Florida, on January 12, 2023.
EVA MARIE UZCATEGUI/AFP via Getty Images
Remittances from the U.S. to Mexico in 2023 were around $63.3 billion, or about 3.5 percent of Mexico's total GDP. It's also a similar amount to the total USAID budget for the entire world, CSIS found. Most of that money makes it way to some of the poorest regions of Mexico, Bledsoe said, with research from the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI) think tank supports.
"For families in low- to middle-income countries who receive remittances from the United States, for instance, remittances are a lifeline that allows people to pay for utilities, services, and everyday expenses that they would otherwise not be able to afford," Ariel G Ruiz Soto, a senior policy analyst at MPI, told Newsweek.
"Remittances can also be turned into investments that benefit not just individual families but also communities through shared projects, like building hospitals, schools, or buying necessary supplies to improve infrastructure."
Among the biggest recipients of all global remittances in 2023 were India ($120 billion), Mexico ($66.2 billion), the Philippines ($39 billion), France ($36.9 billion), China ($29.1 billion), and Pakistan ($26.5 billion), according to the World Bank.
The data from the World Bank covers worldwide payments, meaning not all that money came from the U.S. — though in cases like Mexico, remittances from the U.S. make up the vast bulk of the total. Americans living overseas who send back money home also count in the data. The U.S. received around $7.7 billion in remittances in 2023.
CSIS estimates Mexican workers are sending $300 a month back home in remittances, on average, meaning most of their paycheck is still being spent within the U.S. That means their money is going towards housing, goods and services in their communities, and often state and federal taxes.
There has been a steady rise in the amount of money heading to certain countries in recent years, as migration levels and access to jobs in the U.S. have increased. This has caused concern among some on the right who want to see stricter regulations on remittances.
"It is kind of a double-edged sword," Ira Mehlman, media director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) told Newsweek. FAIR advocates for a more restrictionist immigration policy.
"Yes, it does send money back to people in the home countries, but it also becomes a dependency. If you're going to be sending your best workers out of the country to work in another country and then wait for the money to come back, it impedes the development that needs to happen in those countries."
Mehlman said FAIR also has concerns that payments are making their way back to cartels and other organized crime groups, while American companies are getting away with employing those without legal status, enabling a cheaper workforce that is detrimental to U.S. citizens as well as immigrants with work authorization.
While there is widespread agreement that stopping payments to criminal organizations is necessary, both Bledsoe and Ruiz Soto cautioned against introducing tougher rules on remittance payments. They say this could have an adverse effect on illegal immigration, predicting that, should remittances be cut off from low- and medium-income countries, then more people may look to make the journey to the U.S.
"Because the migrant is already here, sending money back, it means that the family of that migrant isn't in the United States," Bledose said. "So it is preventing migration on some level."
Ruiz Soto added that "by filling the void of government investment and development, remittances reduce the economic pressures for many people to emigrate irregularly over the long term."
Mehlman said Congress could act to introduce stricter measures, as it is looking to do with the tax on remittances, while Ruiz Soto said more security measures to track the funds being sent abroad could be introduced in an attempt to root out abuse.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
25 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Rhode Island lawmakers pass bill to ban sales of assault weapons
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled state House on Friday approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of many semiautomatic rifles commonly referred to as assault weapons. The proposal now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Dan McKee, who has said he supports assault weapons bans. If the bill is signed into law, Rhode Island will join 10 states that have some sort of prohibition on high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide and are now largely the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. Gun control advocates have been pushing for an assault weapons ban in Rhode Island for more than a decade. However, despite being a Democratic stronghold, lawmakers throughout the country's smallest state have long quibbled over the necessity and legality of such proposals. The bill only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession. Only Washington state has a similar law. Residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will also be blocked. Federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. Nine states and the District of Columbia have bans on the possession of assault weapons, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Hawaii bans assault pistols. Critics of Rhode Island's proposed law argued Friday during floor debates that assault weapons bans do little to curb mass shootings and only punish people with such rifles. 'This bill doesn't go after criminals, it just puts the burden on law-abiding citizens,' said Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino. It wasn't just Republicans who opposed the legislation. David Hogg — a gun control advocate who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida — and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence described the proposed ban as the 'weakest assault weapons ban in the country.' 'I know that Rhode Islanders deserve a strong bill that not only bans the sale, but also the possession of assault weapons. It is this combination that equals public safety,' Hogg said in a statement. Elisabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, rejected claims that the proposed law is weak. 'The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now, no ban on assault weapons,' Ryan said. 'This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all.' Nationally, assault weapons bans have been challenged in court by gun rights groups that argue the bans violate the Second Amendment. AR-15-style firearms are among the best-selling rifles in the country. The conservative-majority Supreme Court may soon take up the issue. The justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban in early June, but three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — publicly noted their disagreement. A fourth, Brett Kavanaugh, indicated he was skeptical that the bans are constitutional and predicted the court would hear a case 'in the next term or two.' ___ Associated Press writers David Lieb in Jefferson City, Missouri and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington, D.C. contributed to this report.
Associated Press
31 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Rhode Island lawmakers pass bill to ban sales of assault weapons
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled state House on Friday approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of many semiautomatic rifles commonly referred to as assault weapons. The proposal now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Dan McKee, who has said he supports assault weapons bans. If the bill is signed into law, Rhode Island will join 10 states that have some sort of prohibition on high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide and are now largely the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. Gun control advocates have been pushing for an assault weapons ban in Rhode Island for more than a decade. However, despite being a Democratic stronghold, lawmakers throughout the country's smallest state have long quibbled over the necessity and legality of such proposals. The bill only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession. Only Washington state has a similar law. Residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will also be blocked. Federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. Nine states and the District of Columbia have bans on the possession of assault weapons, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Hawaii bans assault pistols. Critics of Rhode Island's proposed law argued Friday during floor debates that assault weapons bans do little to curb mass shootings and only punish people with such rifles. 'This bill doesn't go after criminals, it just puts the burden on law-abiding citizens,' said Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino. It wasn't just Republicans who opposed the legislation. David Hogg — a gun control advocate who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida — and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence described the proposed ban as the 'weakest assault weapons ban in the country.' 'I know that Rhode Islanders deserve a strong bill that not only bans the sale, but also the possession of assault weapons. It is this combination that equals public safety,' Hogg said in a statement. Elisabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, rejected claims that the proposed law is weak. 'The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now, no ban on assault weapons,' Ryan said. 'This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all.' Nationally, assault weapons bans have been challenged in court by gun rights groups that argue the bans violate the Second Amendment. AR-15-style firearms are among the best-selling rifles in the country. The conservative-majority Supreme Court may soon take up the issue. The justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban in early June, but three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — publicly noted their disagreement. A fourth, Brett Kavanaugh, indicated he was skeptical that the bans are constitutional and predicted the court would hear a case 'in the next term or two.' ___ Associated Press writers David Lieb in Jefferson City, Missouri and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington, D.C. contributed to this report.
Hamilton Spectator
38 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
US evacuates 79 staff and family from embassy in Israel as more Americans ask how to leave
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. evacuated 79 staff and families from the U.S. Embassy in Israel on Friday as the conflict between Israel and Iran intensifies and growing numbers of private American citizens seek information on how to leave Israel and Iran. An internal State Department memo says the military flight, the second known to have occurred this week, left Tel Aviv for Sofia, Bulgaria, where some or all of the passengers were to get a connecting charter flight to Washington. The document, which was obtained by The Associated Press, also said that more than 6,400 U.S. citizens in Israel had filled out an online form on Friday alone asking for information about when and if the U.S. government would organize evacuation flights. An additional 3,265 people, some of whom may also have competed the form, called an emergency number seeking assistance. The document estimated that between 300 and 500 people per day could need evacuation assistance should the U.S. decide to offer flights or ships to get Americans out, as the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has said is being considered. There are some 700,000 Americans in Israel, many of them dual nationals, according to estimates, although the exact number at any given time is unclear because U.S. citizens are not required to notify the embassy if they are there or when they might leave. Earlier Friday, before the memo was distributed, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters that more than 25,000 Americans had reached out for information on leaving Israel, the West Bank and Iran. She told reporters that those people had sought 'information and support' and were 'seeking guidance' on departing. She would not give a breakdown of where the queries had come from and would not comment on embassy evacuations. In Iran, the document said that at least 84 U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, or Green Card holders, had crossed into neighboring Azerbaijan by land since the conflict began and that an additional 774 had been granted permission to enter as of Friday. Nearly 200 American citizens and Green Card holders are awaiting permission to travel overland from Iran to neighboring Turkmenistan, it said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
