This article did a good job pointing out that under Obama's administration there has been a large number of deportations which has thrown off the previously high number of remittances going back to families in Latin America and the Caribbean. I found it shocking that the Obama administration deported a record 1.5 million immigrants in his first term. Immigration from Mexico, the home country of a majority of newcomers to the U.S., declined 3% in January 2013 from the previous year, according to the study, while there was a 9% increase in immigration from the rest of the region. Even if the number of immigrants doesn't increase, remittance flows are likely to rise if employment prospects improve for immigrants already here. IF the U.S. economy continues the way it has, I doubt this will happen.
This interactive map gives more information on remittances around the world. I think that one of the more important statistics is that countries that get remittances from the US experienced higher growth than those from Europe.
This article was shocking to me, not in a bad way, just in one which I had no idea. Obama setting a record in his first term for deporting 1.5 million immigrants, wow...Anyways, everyone knew this was sort of coming with the crazy situation with our economy and more people calling for immigration to end due to competition in the job market. Of course with less immigrants in the United States they are clearly going to send back less remittances to their families possibly slowing Mexico's growth. As many know, this immigration is partially due to NAFTA and the loss of rural jobs that many of the rural poor lost and now need to migrate to the US to find work. Hell, well its just a vicious cycle.
Steven, I also think that remittances are double edged-sword in a sense, especially for Mexico. Out of desperation, the need for displaced subsistence farmers to migrate to the U.S. is largely because of heavily subsidized U.S. agricultural imports. As a result, rural households increasingly rely on remittances since their own firms cannot compete. On the flip side, I also recently read an Economist article, "In Ratings Heaven", that discusses remittances in the Philippines. The article credits its massive flow of remittances for its transition into one of the world's net creditors. About a quarter of the country's labor force, around 10 million Filipinos, live or work abroad. Their remittances amount to 8.5% of GDP. According to the article, this helped the country "plug its trade deficit and amass over $80 billion of its currency reserves".
This article did a good job pointing out that under Obama's administration there has been a large number of deportations which has thrown off the previously high number of remittances going back to families in Latin America and the Caribbean. I found it shocking that the Obama administration deported a record 1.5 million immigrants in his first term. Immigration from Mexico, the home country of a majority of newcomers to the U.S., declined 3% in January 2013 from the previous year, according to the study, while there was a 9% increase in immigration from the rest of the region. Even if the number of immigrants doesn't increase, remittance flows are likely to rise if employment prospects improve for immigrants already here. IF the U.S. economy continues the way it has, I doubt this will happen.
ReplyDeleteThis interactive map gives more information on remittances around the world. I think that one of the more important statistics is that countries that get remittances from the US experienced higher growth than those from Europe.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/interactive/2013/jan/31/remittances-money-migrants-home-interactive
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD8642_Remittance_0424enFINAL.pdf
This article was shocking to me, not in a bad way, just in one which I had no idea. Obama setting a record in his first term for deporting 1.5 million immigrants, wow...Anyways, everyone knew this was sort of coming with the crazy situation with our economy and more people calling for immigration to end due to competition in the job market. Of course with less immigrants in the United States they are clearly going to send back less remittances to their families possibly slowing Mexico's growth. As many know, this immigration is partially due to NAFTA and the loss of rural jobs that many of the rural poor lost and now need to migrate to the US to find work. Hell, well its just a vicious cycle.
ReplyDeleteSteven, I also think that remittances are double edged-sword in a sense, especially for Mexico. Out of desperation, the need for displaced subsistence farmers to migrate to the U.S. is largely because of heavily subsidized U.S. agricultural imports. As a result, rural households increasingly rely on remittances since their own firms cannot compete.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side, I also recently read an Economist article, "In Ratings Heaven", that discusses remittances in the Philippines. The article credits its massive flow of remittances for its transition into one of the world's net creditors. About a quarter of the country's labor force, around 10 million Filipinos, live or work abroad. Their remittances amount to 8.5% of GDP. According to the article, this helped the country "plug its trade deficit and amass over $80 billion of its currency reserves".