If they started taxing all the remittance money, at a very generous rate, that would curtail some of it. Then start using biometrics, especially on their way out, because they’re going to have to start carrying or mailing it home. When that happens, the post office folks, in Mexico, will take all of the money or gangs and cops will be robbing them the moment they cross the border.
And tell them that if they’re not a citizen and they come back they will be immediately deported. No detention. No hearing. Nothing.
Let their country leaders deal with a significant drop in their GDPs
“If they started taxing all the remittance money, at a very generous rate, that would curtail some of it.”
Well and fine for Mr. Pence to tell the Northern Triangle nations, Guate, Sal and Honduras (did he forget Mexico?) to do more to stem illegal immigration and Im sure they all responded with YEAH Boss! But he failed to get their attention. To get their undivided attention on immigration and follow-on issues of State, cease remittances.
Remittances are a very real lifeblood for families and businesses not only Down South but worldwide. Countries have no legal Plan-B. In the US, remittances are big business for banks as well as neighborhood stores who rely on the service as a draw for shoppers. On any given payday weekend, remittances also serve as substantial short-term investment money in motion.
Businesses providing remittance services presumably operate in a legal manner. The regulatory framework governing their operation are absurd. Remittances are also big money. In 2017, worldwide remittances totaled approximately $444B. Of that total, $76B (17%) was funneled to Latin America. So what regions received the remaining 83%?!
Trends in Migration and Remittances 2017
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2017/04/21/trends-in-migration-and-remittances-2017
That would be such a great idea. Are there any legal, constitutional, or pragmatic reasons why we couldnt do that?