The Ethics of Remittance Regulation

At the risk of sounding like an alarmist about my own policy proposal, postal-based remittance regulation could have enormously detrimental effects on immigrant and foreign communities if done haphazardly and in an uninformed fashion. The power of politics could intrude even further into the lives of immigrants, with negative consequences for the developing world as well. One could foresee an immigrant in the United States needing to remit large sums of money in order for that person’s mother or father to be able to afford medicine or a life-saving medical procedure. By limiting that immigrant’s remitting ability, the family may suffer tremendous loss and trauma. An essential part of maximizing social benefit is preventing the unnecessary burying of innocent people, whether in the United States or overseas. In all of these discussions, keeping an eye to the humane treatment of immigrants is tantamount to establishing a humane society, and of fulfilling America’s historical promise of being a welcoming homeland for the world’s oppressed.

To create a more humane system, the Postal Service should establish a procedure for the permitting of an unlimited remittance cap for a period of time to individual immigrants so they can assist family overseas in their struggles. If an immigrant needed to remit a larger sum, the Postal Service could establish a system in which they would transfer the funds yet forgo transfers for a certain number of months after. Additionally, if a country such as Mexico or Indonesia were facing a natural disaster, a waiver to all immigrants from those countries could be permitted for a period of several months to partially help with recovery.

Further, it is reasonable to question the merit of regulating remittances on both pragmatic and principled grounds. It could be contended that remittances lack the potential policy prowess as I propose, with neither the necessary consumer base nor an important enough factor for individual immigrants to consider. Yet, if a low-fee and accessible public remittance service were established the market conditions would be drastically different, especially if accompanied by a legal mandate in the immigration system. As discussed previously, remittance incomes are vital for developing economies as well as the workers and families which compose it, including those abroad. Remittances also have an investing angle. Rather than coming purely out of familial altruism, self-interested financial investments are another avenue of remittance income (Meckel 2008, pg. 21-22). Thus, regulation which affects an individual's ability to engage in such an important function would provoke reactions, hopefully in line with combined interests of concerned stakeholders.