This is an essential part of ending and reversing The Great Replacement. I think we need to understand this in its full context to understand why this system is in place and who the beneficiaries are.
First, let me say that America is a colony. It is a unique colony in history. It is a multi-colony. On the first level are the legal and illegal aliens who work in America and send their money back to their homelands. This is the very definition of a colonizer. A people of a foreign domicile come into a foreign territory, extract its wealth and send it to their home country. Effectively we are a colony of Mexico, Guatemala, India, Philippines, ... ...
Then there is the supra colony on top of it. When Mayorkas was called to the carpet back in '23 he defended mass invasion by saying the remittances were essential to our good relations to the world. Initially, I thought, 'Yes! Aha! This is how the GAE bribes its satraps.' Well, I am sure this is the case. However, it is more than that. Recently Germany announced that it would import 100,000 Kenyans to fill its bus driver shortage. I guess they have 100,000 buses without drivers. In defense of this, a German official gave away the game. He said that this was very important for Germany because Kenya's government could tax the remittances and tax them being spent. This would enable Kenya to continue to pay its debt - to London and Wall St.
So, on top of the fees the banks and financials houses charge, they are essentially robbing America's wealth to keep the third world paying back its loans to the international financial oligarchy. It is also essential to American domiciled companies growth strategy. Walmart, Home Depot and others are opening up large distribution and retail centers in South and Central America to capture those remittances being spent outside of America. It makes sense. You juice the buying power of those country's consumers and expand your business.
In other words, this system is a system of unparalleled usury at a global scale. America the multi-colony is effectively a large prey gashed open and bleeding out as the main course in a grand feast of international predation.
We must communicate this to Americans. They must feel the anger of being this used and this fatally colonized by the world and by the finanicial plutocracy that is domiciled in our territory as they destroy us. We must also tie it back to Paul Krugman and Alejandro Mayorkas and their networks that have this system running to perfection. The Church once protected us from usury. Perhaps they get a piece of the action on tithes from some of the remittance money too.
Not only is The Great Replacement a crime against our people from a genetic and territorial standpoint, it is a grand crime with an elaborate scheme to pay for our own destruction.
The system must fall. I wonder if Musk will begin to tweet about this aspect of TGR in addition to the NGO based voter importation aspect of it.
This is a vital strategy down to even the most basic of budgeting. If you want to have more cash on hand to apply to important goals, you have to stop spending money and keep it in house. Cheap remittances is the equivalent of giving your four year old a credit card and sending them to the candy store once a week. To tax remittances is to allow America to begin to focus on the matters at hand.
People have a right to their own property. If they want to send it home to grandma, that is their business. I think it's a bad idea to use taxes and niche laws to try to achieve social compliance. If remittances are a problem, stop handing out green cards like candy.
Taxes on money leaving the country is a pretty old idea, and it's also reasonable. You don't pay as high taxes on money that you reinvest in the domestic economy, while any money that leaves the country is taxed again to incentivize keeping the money inside your own country.
Not handing out any more green cards is obviously also a great idea, but we also need incentives to make the people already here leave.
On the one hand, something must be done to remove foreign agents and the extractive exploitation they introduce at our expense.
On the other hand, these points are myopic -- implicitly arguing for a CBDC, tracking and taxing at will. In my lifetime, every advancement of national security architecture has been a loss for regular American citizens while the promised benefits never materialize.
The SALT deduction has been terrible, syphoning federal tax dollars from prudent states while helping to inflate residential property bubbles in states like California.
Modifying social behavior through selective taxation is all well and good as long as it is enforcing behavior you agree with. For myself, I have never yet seen my values or interests represented in governance. This administration has probably come the closest, but nothing has been fixed yet.
Could someone please explain to me what foreigners are doing with their remittances? Doesn't that money eventually have to find its way back to the US? If it doesn't, wouldn't that mean the purchasing power of the USD would be higher in the US than if that money were spent in the US?
Remittances incentivize migration into the United States because they view their economic opportunities here as viable to fund their favela homeland. If we limit remittances, we’d cut the financial lifeline that lures millions across our borders—both legally and illegally—reducing immigration.
Your argument regarding global USD purchasing power is marginal at best. With $2.3 trillion in circulation and a $28 trillion GDP, $150 billion is a rounding error—less than 1% of GDP and 8% of circulating cash. The Fed’s rate hikes or trade flows dwarf that effect. Meanwhile, we’re stuck with the costs: $20 billion a year on border security and wages tanking in construction. The dollar’s already king; it doesn’t need this crutch.
It wasn't an argument, George; it was a question. You claimed that remittances per se hurt Americans by "siphon[ing] billions out of the U. S. economy." My question was how it does so. Now you're appearing to say it's the immigration itself, not the remittances. My questions were to cover all the bases of what their families can do with remittances: spend them on US goods or services or assets (in which case the money wouldn't be siphoned out of the US economy) or don't (in which case I don't see how that hurts Americans).
Effort post: Your question about remittances not really "siphoning" money if they’re spent on U.S. goods misses the broader economic damage they cause. That $150 billion leaving the U.S. each year largely fuels foreign economies—take Mexico, where $53 billion in 2024 remittances boosted local spending, often on non-U.S. goods, which worsens our $947 billion trade deficit in 2023. This capital flight means money isn’t circulating locally to support American businesses and jobs; if that $150 billion stayed here, it’d multiply through local spending, creating more economic activity. Instead, it strengthens foreign economies, often in regions with lower labor costs, enabling them to outcompete U.S. industries. Plus, it creates dependency in recipient countries—Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, relies heavily on remittances but sees little pressure on corrupt governments to reform, perpetuating global inequality that drives more migration back to us. That’s a real hit to Americans, even if some dollars trickle back through exports.
I’m not pivoting to immigration to dodge your question—it’s directly tied to the remittance problem, and pretending otherwise ignores the cycle at play. Remittances incentivize migration by acting as a financial lifeline; in places like Honduras, where they’re 26.6% of GDP, families see the U.S. as an economic escape hatch, encouraging more people to cross our borders, legally or not. This isn’t a separate issue—it’s the mechanism that fuels the outflow in the first place. That migration wave suppresses wages for American workers, with studies showing a 3-5% drop for native-born folks in low-skilled sectors over a decade, and burdens taxpayers with $150 billion annually in public costs like education and healthcare. Remittances and immigration are two sides of the same coin, and both sides hurt Americans by draining our economy and straining our resources.
But what exactly is "outflowing" from the US? If it's just paper currency never to return, how does this make Americans worse off? They would have traded paper for labor. Obviously, this isn't what's happening. The only reason the rest of the world as a whole would trade real goods and services for USD is because they expect to get real goods and services in return. Otherwise Americans are getting something for nothing. Even if Jorge sends USD to his family back in Mexico and they buy Mexican goods with it, those dollars will eventually have to find their way back to the US, otherwise, again, Americans are getting something for nothing.
If the goal was just to boost local spending, why not have the Fed just print up a bunch of money and give it to Americans to spend, with the restriction that it must be spent in the US? Does that make Americans wealthier? Obviously not. It doesn't increase the amount of goods and services.
And ultimately the problem you're pointing to with African corruption, etc. is with immigration, not remittances. That is, these problems (Africans leaving rather than fixing their countries, immigrants competing in the American labor market and lowering wages, all else held constant) would be the same if those immigrants remitted nothing and spent it all domestically. Yes, remittances make migration more attractive than it otherwise would be, but what you're really wanting to tax (so that you get less of it) is immigration (which you can accomplish through taxing remittances, but also through other means) rather than remittances per se.
This is an essential part of ending and reversing The Great Replacement. I think we need to understand this in its full context to understand why this system is in place and who the beneficiaries are.
First, let me say that America is a colony. It is a unique colony in history. It is a multi-colony. On the first level are the legal and illegal aliens who work in America and send their money back to their homelands. This is the very definition of a colonizer. A people of a foreign domicile come into a foreign territory, extract its wealth and send it to their home country. Effectively we are a colony of Mexico, Guatemala, India, Philippines, ... ...
Then there is the supra colony on top of it. When Mayorkas was called to the carpet back in '23 he defended mass invasion by saying the remittances were essential to our good relations to the world. Initially, I thought, 'Yes! Aha! This is how the GAE bribes its satraps.' Well, I am sure this is the case. However, it is more than that. Recently Germany announced that it would import 100,000 Kenyans to fill its bus driver shortage. I guess they have 100,000 buses without drivers. In defense of this, a German official gave away the game. He said that this was very important for Germany because Kenya's government could tax the remittances and tax them being spent. This would enable Kenya to continue to pay its debt - to London and Wall St.
So, on top of the fees the banks and financials houses charge, they are essentially robbing America's wealth to keep the third world paying back its loans to the international financial oligarchy. It is also essential to American domiciled companies growth strategy. Walmart, Home Depot and others are opening up large distribution and retail centers in South and Central America to capture those remittances being spent outside of America. It makes sense. You juice the buying power of those country's consumers and expand your business.
In other words, this system is a system of unparalleled usury at a global scale. America the multi-colony is effectively a large prey gashed open and bleeding out as the main course in a grand feast of international predation.
We must communicate this to Americans. They must feel the anger of being this used and this fatally colonized by the world and by the finanicial plutocracy that is domiciled in our territory as they destroy us. We must also tie it back to Paul Krugman and Alejandro Mayorkas and their networks that have this system running to perfection. The Church once protected us from usury. Perhaps they get a piece of the action on tithes from some of the remittance money too.
Not only is The Great Replacement a crime against our people from a genetic and territorial standpoint, it is a grand crime with an elaborate scheme to pay for our own destruction.
The system must fall. I wonder if Musk will begin to tweet about this aspect of TGR in addition to the NGO based voter importation aspect of it.
This is a vital strategy down to even the most basic of budgeting. If you want to have more cash on hand to apply to important goals, you have to stop spending money and keep it in house. Cheap remittances is the equivalent of giving your four year old a credit card and sending them to the candy store once a week. To tax remittances is to allow America to begin to focus on the matters at hand.
People have a right to their own property. If they want to send it home to grandma, that is their business. I think it's a bad idea to use taxes and niche laws to try to achieve social compliance. If remittances are a problem, stop handing out green cards like candy.
Taxes on money leaving the country is a pretty old idea, and it's also reasonable. You don't pay as high taxes on money that you reinvest in the domestic economy, while any money that leaves the country is taxed again to incentivize keeping the money inside your own country.
Not handing out any more green cards is obviously also a great idea, but we also need incentives to make the people already here leave.
On the one hand, something must be done to remove foreign agents and the extractive exploitation they introduce at our expense.
On the other hand, these points are myopic -- implicitly arguing for a CBDC, tracking and taxing at will. In my lifetime, every advancement of national security architecture has been a loss for regular American citizens while the promised benefits never materialize.
The SALT deduction has been terrible, syphoning federal tax dollars from prudent states while helping to inflate residential property bubbles in states like California.
Modifying social behavior through selective taxation is all well and good as long as it is enforcing behavior you agree with. For myself, I have never yet seen my values or interests represented in governance. This administration has probably come the closest, but nothing has been fixed yet.
Could someone please explain to me what foreigners are doing with their remittances? Doesn't that money eventually have to find its way back to the US? If it doesn't, wouldn't that mean the purchasing power of the USD would be higher in the US than if that money were spent in the US?
Remittances incentivize migration into the United States because they view their economic opportunities here as viable to fund their favela homeland. If we limit remittances, we’d cut the financial lifeline that lures millions across our borders—both legally and illegally—reducing immigration.
Your argument regarding global USD purchasing power is marginal at best. With $2.3 trillion in circulation and a $28 trillion GDP, $150 billion is a rounding error—less than 1% of GDP and 8% of circulating cash. The Fed’s rate hikes or trade flows dwarf that effect. Meanwhile, we’re stuck with the costs: $20 billion a year on border security and wages tanking in construction. The dollar’s already king; it doesn’t need this crutch.
It wasn't an argument, George; it was a question. You claimed that remittances per se hurt Americans by "siphon[ing] billions out of the U. S. economy." My question was how it does so. Now you're appearing to say it's the immigration itself, not the remittances. My questions were to cover all the bases of what their families can do with remittances: spend them on US goods or services or assets (in which case the money wouldn't be siphoned out of the US economy) or don't (in which case I don't see how that hurts Americans).
Effort post: Your question about remittances not really "siphoning" money if they’re spent on U.S. goods misses the broader economic damage they cause. That $150 billion leaving the U.S. each year largely fuels foreign economies—take Mexico, where $53 billion in 2024 remittances boosted local spending, often on non-U.S. goods, which worsens our $947 billion trade deficit in 2023. This capital flight means money isn’t circulating locally to support American businesses and jobs; if that $150 billion stayed here, it’d multiply through local spending, creating more economic activity. Instead, it strengthens foreign economies, often in regions with lower labor costs, enabling them to outcompete U.S. industries. Plus, it creates dependency in recipient countries—Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, relies heavily on remittances but sees little pressure on corrupt governments to reform, perpetuating global inequality that drives more migration back to us. That’s a real hit to Americans, even if some dollars trickle back through exports.
I’m not pivoting to immigration to dodge your question—it’s directly tied to the remittance problem, and pretending otherwise ignores the cycle at play. Remittances incentivize migration by acting as a financial lifeline; in places like Honduras, where they’re 26.6% of GDP, families see the U.S. as an economic escape hatch, encouraging more people to cross our borders, legally or not. This isn’t a separate issue—it’s the mechanism that fuels the outflow in the first place. That migration wave suppresses wages for American workers, with studies showing a 3-5% drop for native-born folks in low-skilled sectors over a decade, and burdens taxpayers with $150 billion annually in public costs like education and healthcare. Remittances and immigration are two sides of the same coin, and both sides hurt Americans by draining our economy and straining our resources.
But what exactly is "outflowing" from the US? If it's just paper currency never to return, how does this make Americans worse off? They would have traded paper for labor. Obviously, this isn't what's happening. The only reason the rest of the world as a whole would trade real goods and services for USD is because they expect to get real goods and services in return. Otherwise Americans are getting something for nothing. Even if Jorge sends USD to his family back in Mexico and they buy Mexican goods with it, those dollars will eventually have to find their way back to the US, otherwise, again, Americans are getting something for nothing.
If the goal was just to boost local spending, why not have the Fed just print up a bunch of money and give it to Americans to spend, with the restriction that it must be spent in the US? Does that make Americans wealthier? Obviously not. It doesn't increase the amount of goods and services.
And ultimately the problem you're pointing to with African corruption, etc. is with immigration, not remittances. That is, these problems (Africans leaving rather than fixing their countries, immigrants competing in the American labor market and lowering wages, all else held constant) would be the same if those immigrants remitted nothing and spent it all domestically. Yes, remittances make migration more attractive than it otherwise would be, but what you're really wanting to tax (so that you get less of it) is immigration (which you can accomplish through taxing remittances, but also through other means) rather than remittances per se.
Fair enough. Just don't go around pretending you understand international trade.
I explain the money flows in my comment above.