Remittances: The U.S. Is Not the World’s Cash Cow

In his 1931 book, The Epic of America, historian James Truslow Adams coined the term “American Dream” which he defined as “that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement.” He further clarified, “It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

Adams describes how foreigners, Europeans, saw this as the most striking difference between the old world and the new – that America rejected the old aristocracy of social class in favor of an egalitarian system of opportunity among its citizens. He hoped Americans would break a stifling social class order to pursue wealth not just in material sense, but by attaining a higher virtue and spiritual state as well. He feared that the value of these other qualities was being lost in the utilitarian expansion of the frontier where survival had to take priority.

In modern times, his fears are being realized. The “American Dream” is seen not as a set of values, but a marketing slogan used to encourage the “poor and huddled masses” to come to America and enrich themselves. Recently, while waiting in the customs line at Dulles International Airport, I watched an advertisement loop that featured our landmarks and the space shuttle, but also Chinese people in Chinatown, blacks playing basketball, and Muslims in front of a mosque. The messaging was clear – anyone can come to America. Bring your culture here with you. It’s just a place to live.

Not only do many immigrants fail to assimilate, they actively reject American values as Adams hoped to cultivate, prefer their own, and see America as an economic zone in which to enrich themselves.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktokofficial)

What happened? We forfeited ourselves in favor of an ever-rising GDP line. I discussed in previous articles how the increase in GDP is not reflected in the average quality of life—rather, the increase in GDP is consumed by either the wealthiest 1% or by the immigrants themselves through welfare, the education of their children, and other services. Worse, lot of it doesn’t even stay in America.

Instead, we are subsidizing the GDP of other countries, primarily Latin America, but including China and India, via remittances. In this article, I will offer a window to the vast seas of people we have accepted into our country, where their money is going, and finally, I suggest how this outflow might be reversed while maintaining our generosity and charity as a proud nation with targeted and mutually beneficial foreign aid goals.

Let’s start with Latin America. Since the 70s, the largest share of immigrants to the United States has been from this region.

There are 40 million people of Mexican origin in the U.S. ~28.5% of whom, or 11.4 million, were born in Mexico. Another 12-13.6 million are their children. A quarter of all Mexicans live in the United States. (See more in the CIS Foreign Born Population Report here.)

According to Bank of Mexico data collected by FAIR here, in 2024, $62.5 billion was sent via remittances from the U.S. to Mexico. California and Texas sent $20.4 billion and $9 billion respectively.

Meanwhile, the Center for Immigration Studies found that 70% of Hispanic immigrants are on welfare.

Although we receive the most immigrants from Mexico, the United States is also home to 10% of all Guatemalans. There are more than 2 million Guatemalans in the US. 65% of whom, or 1.3 million are foreign-born. Another 740k are their children. 77% of immigrant, non-citizen Guatemalans are on welfare. Remittances to Guatemala make up 27% of their GDP.

(Image created with the interactive data from the World Bank website here.)

You can view the interactive Remittances, Received (% of GDP) Calculator at the World Bank website here and try it out for any country. 27% of Honduras’ economy is remittances. 25% of El Salvador’s GDP is remittances. And 27% of Nicaragua’s GDP is remittances. 80 – 83% of these, (22% of Nicaragua’s GDP) $6 billion, comes from the U.S. 12% of all Nicaraguans live in the united States—about 850,000 people. 75% of households headed by a person born in Nicaragua utilize at least one major welfare program.

1.7 million Haitians, or ~12% of all Haitians live in the United States. A third of these, between 450k – 550k, entered under the Biden admin’s open border policies. 15 – 25% of the Haitian economy is made up of remittances from the US. And 53% of Haitians in the U.S. rely on welfare.

To recap:

• A quarter of all Mexicans live in the United States. 70% of Hispanic immigrant families rely on welfare.
• ~10% of all Guatemalans live in the U.S. 77% of whom rely on welfare.
• 12% of all Nicaraguans live in the U.S., and 75% rely on welfare.
• 12% of all Haitians live in the U.S., and 53% rely on welfare.

Remittances make up:

• 27% of the GDP of Honduras
• 25% of El Salvador’s GDP
• 27% of Guatemala’s GDP
• 25% of Nicaragua’s GDP
• 16% of Haiti’s GDP

This trend of subsidizing other countries via remittances is not limited to the U.S. either – Denmark sends $5 billion broad, Germany sends $24 billion, and Canada sends more than $13 billion.

However, we dug further and noticed this is not a phenomenon that can be attributed to all immigrants generally. Non-Western immigrants send significantly larger amounts abroad. For example, in 1975, 20% of Australia’s population was foreign-born. Most of these immigrants were British and European. At the time, remittances were only $222 million. However, in 2025, the foreign-born population exceeds 32%. Most newcomers are from China, India, and other non-Western countries. This is only a 12% increase in the foreign-born population, but remittances topped $12 billion.

In 2024, non-Brits were ~28% of Britain’s population and sent ~$12.27 billion in remittances abroad. Pakistanis in particular sent $4.4 billion back to Pakistan.

What can be done?

Requiring banks to verify citizenship for all customers is a relatively easy administrative decision the Trump Administration is already considering via executive order. Any measure that makes it more difficult to live a normal lifestyle in the U.S. will cut illegal immigration and make it more difficult for foreigners to send money home.

Next, we ought to revise the public charge rule and denaturalize those who would not have qualified.

According to Title 8, chapter 11, subchapter 2, part 2, section 1182 of the United States Code;

“Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.”

When this was added in 1994, one would think the wording was sufficient to exclude would-be immigrants who could potentially abuse the welfare safety-net we maintain for American citizens. Unfortunately, this was not the case, and Administrations have regularly re-defined what constitutes a “public charge.” For example, under the Obama administration, potential immigrants who would be reliant on Medicaid, food stamps, or housing benefits were not denied. Entire categories of immigrants not subjected at all to the public charge rule include refugees, asylees, DACA recipients, people applying for TPS, renewing green cards, those applying for citizenship, and women abused by their husbands. The Trump administration is once again re-affirming what constitutes a public charge.

However, given the history of administrative reversals, it’s important that these revisions are codified into law. Representative Randy Fine (R-FL) has proposed something like this in his No Welfare for Non-Citizens Act, and we would love to see it expanded retroactively to 1994 respecting the original intention of the Public Charge Rule.

And finally, we must impose a higher tax on remittances. Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) consistently champions this cause as a way to fund border protection and included it as a conditional factor for his vote to support the One Big Beautiful Bill.

But what about foreign aid? If we’re in a position of wealth and have the opportunity to improve the world while advancing our interests, should we do so? With 61% of illegal and 51% of legal immigrants on some form of welfare program, this is American tax money already being funneled abroad. Surely there is a better use for welfare or other government assistance than subsidizing the economy of foreign nations with no oversight on how that money is spent.

We are the world’s largest overall remittance-sending country with an outflow of $200 billion as of the latest available bilateral data from 2021 included in the latest 2025 FAIR Remittances Report. The top five recipients were Mexico ($52.6 billion), India ($15.8 billion), Guatemala ($14.7 billion), the Philippines (12.8 billion), and China ($12.7 billion). These totals grew in 2025: we sent ~$60 billion to Mexico, $21 billion to Guatemala and now include $10.5 billion to Honduras, $8.5 billion to El Salvador, and $6 billion to Nicaragua.

Knowing the rate of welfare use among these immigrant groups, we know that a large portion of this fund availability comes from the American taxpayer. First and foremost, our welfare safety net should be reserved for Americans only. But it’s an inspiring thought experiment to consider, what could we achieve instead if this kind of money was used as intentional foreign aid?

Nayib Bukele implemented his territorial control plan in El Salvador for $575.2 million and has proposed a similar plan for Haiti, only lacking resources. A stable Haiti means less incentive for migration to the United States and more incentive for the 12% of Haitians who live here to remigrate home. A win-win.

$75 billion would rebuild all of Syria’s residential buildings according to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I was at a party recently with a gentleman from Syria who explained to me that Syrians desperately want to go home but need somewhere to live. We have suggested before that Western Countries could very well work with the Syrian government for foreign aid in exchange for remigration.

When defining the American Dream, James Truslow Adams lamented, even in 1931, that “money making and material improvements … mere extensions of the material basis of existence,” were becoming “goods in themselves … they took on the aspects of moral virtues,” and that “we forgot to live in our struggle to ‘make a living.’” Only six years later, the provocative philosopher Julius Evola expressed a similar concern from Italy in Civilta Americana, “The Americans’ ‘open mindedness,’ which is sometimes cited in their favor, is the other side of their interior formlessness.” That “this is obviously the case with the ‘self-made man’; in a society which has lost all sense of tradition the notion of personal aggrandizement will extend into every aspect of human existence.” In his eyes, the abandonment of traditional class roles in favor of a free meritocracy extended into an abandonment of tradition and spiritual ideals altogether—the things Adams hoped America would create in its own way—and the worship of base materialism.

Americans failed to appreciate and cultivate their uniqueness as a new people of a new nation, and because of that myopia, we are rapidly losing whatever “self” we may have had as a people. If we treat our own society as merely a cash cow for individuals without a uniting purpose, we should not be surprised when other people groups immigrate and do the same. At White Papers, we argue there is a higher good. There is a true American culture within greater Western Civilization. And I hope we will find it before we lose ourselves entirely.