Should asylum seekers be banned from sending remitannces?

[lfromnj]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/business/darien-gap-china-immigration.html

Mr. Zhong soon moved to a town of 30,000 people in Alabama. He had grown up near Chengdu, a city of 20 million. Now he felt truly alone. He works at a Chinese restaurant 11 hours a day, he said, and is unwilling to take a day off. He has learned to cook General Tso’s chicken and other Chinese American dishes. The pay is much better than in China, and he can send more money home. Every Sunday, he joins an online religious service, hosted by a church in Brooklyn’s Sunset Park, another community with a large population of Chinese immigrants.

If China was persecuting him then why is he sending money that the Chinese government can tax?

[bagelman]

Because they have families and loved ones. He's thinking about them, not about whatever petty amount the CCP can gain through tax.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

No

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

No (literally not a f**king ghoul)

You know what could reduce remittances though? Making it easier for immigrants to bring their families with them. Maeks u think huh

[Averroës]

By the destination country where they are working? I'm struggling to understand the argument.

I can see why someone concerned with economic development in the receiving country would have concerns about it, although China would be an odd country to focus on from that perspective.

[lfromnj]

By the destination country where they are working? I'm struggling to understand the argument.

I can see why someone concerned with economic development in the receiving country would have concerns about it, although China would be an odd country to focus on from that perspective.

Its more just a generic country in an article I was reading through. It would apply to any country really.

[Goldwater]

No, I believe in economic freedom.

[lfromnj]

No, I believe in economic freedom.

Sure normal immigrants can but it just strikes me as disingeious for so called refugees sending money back. They are just economic migrants like everyone else except they are lying.

[Fascism Must Be Defeated]

No, I believe in economic freedom.

Sure normal immigrants can but it just strikes me as disingeious for so called refugees sending money back. They are just economic migrants like everyone else except they are lying.

Why can't a refugee care about their family? Jerkass

[100% pro-choice no matter what]

Remittances should be done away with- US immigration policy should work to admit entire families so this doesn't happen.

[lfromnj]

No, I believe in economic freedom.

Sure normal immigrants can but it just strikes me as disingeious for so called refugees sending money back. They are just economic migrants like everyone else except they are lying.

Why can't a refugee care about their family? Jerkass

It probably wouldn't affect China much but for a country like Venezuela which is where a large portion of todays refugees come from the goal of current US foreign policy is sanctions on the entire country.  Draining their population is a good goal as well but if they can send back money our sanctions are far less effective. I guess there might be an argument for say Haitian refugees to not be banned as we don't really oppose the Haitian "government" and the gangs really aren't an issue for US foreign policy.

[Mr. Illini]

No, I believe in economic freedom.

Sure normal immigrants can but it just strikes me as disingeious for so called refugees sending money back. They are just economic migrants like everyone else except they are lying.

We should allow way more economic migrants.

[Ferguson97]

No, I believe in economic freedom.

Sure normal immigrants can but it just strikes me as disingeious for so called refugees sending money back. They are just economic migrants like everyone else except they are lying.

Why can't a refugee care about their family? Jerkass

It probably wouldn't affect China much but for a country like Venezuela which is where a large portion of todays refugees come from the goal of current US foreign policy is sanctions on the entire country.  Draining their population is a good goal as well but if they can send back money our sanctions are far less effective. I guess there might be an argument for say Haitian refugees to not be banned as we don't really oppose the Haitian "government" and the gangs really aren't an issue for US foreign policy.

This is one of the most ghoulish things I've read today, congrats.

[Casino Democrat]

I don't get the point.  Why do that when we can do something else. . . . . like penalize rich folks who hide their money in offshore banking accounts to avoid paying taxes?

[lfromnj]

I don't get the point.  Why do that when we can do something else. . . . . like penalize rich folks who hide their money in offshore banking accounts to avoid paying taxes?

Because rich people being rich isn't contrary to American foreign policy interests ?

[Sopranos Republican]

I don't really get the argument here (even from an economic standpoint, never-mind the morality question).

If an asylum seeker is able to secure a legitamate status they'll be paying income taxes to the Federal/State government, which is, at least in theory, a net positive to the US. If we enact some kind of law banning this then it is very likely that the asylum seeker will either:

1. Just come here illegally in the first place which pretty much completely rules out gaining a tax benefit from them.

2. Still come here legally but get a job under the table due to the restriction, which again leads to no tax revenue.

3.  Seek asylum in another wealthy country that doesn't have such a restriction, which still leads to the tax benefit to the country that they're seeking asylum from, but no benefit of course to us again.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I could see an argument that banning remittances might lessen the incentive to falsely claim asylum status, but it isn't evidence in itself that the person isn't genuinely seeking asylum. 

[CheapDollarEra?]

No