Mr. Eble CP2 Senior English Immigration and Remittances: Myth #6 in 20 Myths

Myth #6: Immigrants Send Most of What They Earn Out of the Country In the Form of Remittances In this presentation, we’ll focus on: An example of this myth Chomsky’s main claim against the myth Chomsky’s supporting claims Chomsky’s evidence My stance on the issue My connection to the issue of undocumented children coming to the U.S.

Lou Dobbs on Remittances on CNN “…[M]illions of illegal aliens are fleeing the dire economic conditions that do exist in Mexico. According to the World Bank, more than half of all Mexican citizens live in poverty. One in five live in extreme poverty. Eighty percent of the agricultural regions of Mexico, in poverty. The Mexican citizens cross our border illegally. Some of them find work, and many of them send their earnings back to Mexico. Those earnings have added up to nearly $17 billion in the past year. Remittances, as they're called, are expected to become Mexico's primary source of income this year, surpassing the amount of money that Mexico makes on oil exports for the first time ever. Meanwhile, the U.S. Trade deficit with Mexico for the last year surpassed $45 billion. Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are using bank accounts in this country to send those remittances home, and many U.S. banks are now aggressively helping illegal aliens open those accounts. Those banks refer to the practice in the political correct vernacular as banking the unbanked. ” Taken from a transcript of Lou Dobbs Tonight from an episode that aired March 21, 2005 (

Lou Dobbs on Remittances on CNN What this means: Dobbs says that illegal immigrants coming into the U.S. are bilking the American government by not contributing their share of taxes… and banks are helping them. He claims that Mexico’s largest source of income in 2005 was remittances. Therefore, Dobbs shows that immigrants are harming the U.S. economy by sending billions of untaxed dollars to their families in their home countries.

Chomsky’s Main Claim Claim of Fact located in her final paragraph:

Chomsky’s Main Claim In other words… Though immigrants do send money out of the country in the form of remittances, remittances aren’t completely harming the U.S. economy. One cannot look at that money as “lost” or purposeless because it is part of a larger system in the complex global economy.

Chomsky’s Supporting Claims #1: Claim of Value: Remittances don’t harm our economy; (Claim of Fact) immigrants spend most of what they earn in the United States. Evidence for Support: Supported by quantitative evidence (statistics) she provides from her knowledge: “Ninety percent of immigrants’ wages are spent in this country” (46).

Chomsky’s Supporting Claims #2: Claim of Fact: Citizens also spend money in other countries, which isn’t seen as a problem. Evidence for Support: Chomsky makes a comparison here: “Citizens, too, of course spend some of their earnings abroad— directly, if they travel, or indirectly, if they purchase imported goods” (47)

Chomsky’s Supporting Claims #3: Claim of Fact: The system is very complex, so it’s very difficult to determine who benefits from every dollar spent. Chomsky makes an argument by example here:

Chomsky’s Supporting Claims #4: Claim of Fact Remittances are spent in a complex way that isn’t necessarily so awful for the American economy or so beneficial for immigrants Evidence for Support: First-hand quantitative evidence“A significant—though shrinking—portion goes to the institutions that process the financial transactions” (47). Evidence for Support: First-hand comparison Some go to family members, who spend money on imported products— which can come from American companies who make money from those products.

Chomsky’s Supporting Claims #4: (continued) Claim of Fact Remittances are spent in a complex way that isn’t necessarily so awful for the American economy or so beneficial for immigrants Finally, “remittance money is more efficient than foreign aid at improving people’s lives in ways that reduce migration” (48). Therefore, remittances can be more efficient than U.S. tax money being spent on foreign aid to poorer countries. Evidence as Support: Chomsky uses a second-hand example that the “Mexican government has been…active in using incentives to channel money into economic development” (48) This brings U.S. companies to Mexico, which brings lower wages, which may actually cause more migration.

Chomsky’s Supporting Claims #5: Claim of Fact Remittances can also cause migration. “So rather than creating jobs, the system creates new incentives to migrate, since only families who count migrants among their family members can afford this kind of consumption” (49). Evidence as Support: Chomsky uses quantitative second-hand evidence: Statistics for the example of El Salvador showing that a “significant portion of remittances is spent on imported consumer goods. Imports rose from 27.7% of El Salvador’s [Gross Domestic Product] in 1990 to 42% in 2004” (49) She also uses an end note to cite Catherine Elton’s “Latin America’s Faulty Lifeline”

My Stance Remittances: Not awful… Part of a larger system—not a reason to blame immigrants Claim of Policy: Our country needs to find ways to allow migrants to bring their families to the United States, as well as ways to enhance economic development in other countries instead of exploiting them.

Connection to Undocumented Migrant Children In the last few months, over 50,000 undocumented migrant children have crossed into the U.S. looking for asylum and their families. Remittances clearly aren’t enough to support families who are facing violence at home.