Associated Press
April 5, 2016
The
billions of dollars in U.S. remittances that Donald Trump is
threatening to block to force Mexico to pay for a border wall are a
financial lifeline for the Latin American country's economy
and millions of individuals who are supported by relatives up north.
For
families across Mexico, the transfers help put food on the table and
clothe children. They can make it possible to start a small business,
put an addition on a cinderblock home or buy
a secondhand truck to use on a farm.
So
it's not surprising many Mexicans had negative reactions Tuesday to the
Republican presidential candidate's proposal to cut off remittances
from the more than 11 million Mexicans living
in the United States unless Mexico makes a one-time payment of $5
billion to $10 billion.
"That
money they send so their family here can live, I don't know how they
could do that to them," said Ramiro Altamirano Macedo de la Concha, a
76-year-old taxi driver in Mexico City. "That
man is half-crazy."
One
U.S. group that favors reduced immigration called for less emphasis on
the wall and more on ensuring people in the United States without
authorization cannot work or enjoy benefits and
services.
"If
you don't think you will benefit from coming here illegally, you won't
come here illegally," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for
American Immigration Reform.
Mehlman
said Americans have "made it perfectly clear" they are willing to pay
for fencing where necessary if that reduces the cost of immigration.
"It
is not about punishing Mexico, it is about benefiting the people of the
United States. ... We don't need to threaten Mexico," he said.
Mexican government officials declined or did not respond to requests for comment.
Remittances
to Mexico hit nearly $24.8 billion last year, more than the country
gets from oil exports. Nearly all of that originated in the United
States, with most of it going directly to
individuals.
Trump's
plan would hurt "because the remittances that come from the United
States are a great help," said Carlos Martinez, a Mexico City resident
whose brother in Seattle sends about $300
to their parents every other month.
The funds filter into Mexico's broader economy through purchases and investments, and stimulate production.
Alfredo
Coutino, Latin America director for Moody's Analytics, said remittances
account for 2.5 percent of Mexico's GDP, and the country's central bank
has said they are responsible for keeping
poverty from rising.
If
Trump's proposal were to become reality, "it would go directly to
consumption and, in practice, affect families who receive this income
and who have begun to build new homes, ... to have
flat-screen TVs, to have cellphones, and so on, in the most remote
towns of the country," Coutino said.
That
includes places that have seen higher levels of emigration due to
poverty or violence, such as Oaxaca, Chiapas, Veracruz, Michoacan and
Jalisco states.
"It
would be hard for us. ... How are we going to support our family?" said
Arnulfo Gonzalez, a 40-year-old in New York who sends $600 to $1,500 a
month to his mother in Oaxaca. "Since we
can't vote, we don't have any say."
Others were skeptical that the plan would ever be put in place.
"It's
not reasonable. It's not logical. That rhetoric is just electoral
strategy," said Aracelis Lucero, who was born in the United States and
whose parents send money to relatives in the
Mexican city of Puebla. "We shouldn't give it too much importance. All
this is a bit frightening because people like this are being considered
for the presidency. ... But the Latino vote counts for a lot."
Analysts
say Mexican migrants would likely turn to other avenues such as sending
hard cash with travelers or wiring through third countries. It could
also create a market for the kind of
informal, off-the-books money transfers seen in other parts of the
world.
The remittances plan was also criticized by migrants' advocates and policy analysts.
Ricardo
Ramirez, a political scientist at the University of Notre Dame, said
that while he considers the Trump proposal unfeasible, in practice it
would hurt companies like Western Union
that make big money handling transfers.
"On
the other hand," he added, "if remittances are impacted, then the
economic stability of Mexico would be threatened. Which means there
would be more of a push to have immigrants come to
the U.S., so it might actually have the inverse effect."
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment