Bill Overview
Title: Cartel Haven Sanction Act
Description: This bill requires the President to prohibit remittances from the United States to Mexico until a physical wall on the U.S.-Mexico border has been constructed and is fully operational. The bill also authorizes the President to use amounts derived from imposing sanctions on individuals associated with illegal drug cartel or human trafficking organizations in Mexico for various purposes to benefit U.S. citizens.
Sponsors: Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-4]
Target Audience
Population: People who remit money from the US to Mexico and their families in Mexico
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The legislation would impact individuals who send remittances from the U.S. to Mexico, which primarily include Mexican migrants in the United States.
- In 2020, the average remittance from the U.S. to Mexico was about $4,500 annually per sender.
- According to World Bank data, remittance flows to Mexico were approximately $40 billion in 2020.
- There are about 37 million Mexican immigrants in the United States, however, not all of them send remittances, based on available data, approximately 90% of Mexican immigrants remit money back home regularly.
- The bill can affect family members in Mexico who rely on these funds for household consumption.
- Remittances make up about 3% of Mexico's GDP, indicating the large scale of reliance.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects individuals who send remittances from the U.S. to Mexico. This includes both documented and undocumented Mexican immigrants. Many families depend on these remittances for their everyday needs, so halting this flow will likely have a direct and immediate impact on them.
- The ripple effects may also extend to broader Mexican-American communities and individuals with familial ties to Mexico who might not send regular remittances but feel obligated to help after the policy implementation.
- In the interviews below, I have included people directly impacted by sending remittances, as well as those who might experience secondary effects like community organizers, business owners in Hispanic communities, or policy supporters.
- I expect a diversity of responses, with those directly affected likely to express concern over economic challenges and those not directly involved potentially showing support for increased security or resource allocation away from cartels.
- The wellbeing scores will likely improve for those feeling less threatened by cartel activities and decrease for those impacted by lost remittance capabilities.
Simulated Interviews
Nurse (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will devastate my family in Mexico as their monthly expenses are highly dependent on the money I send.
- I'm worried about their well-being and the choices I might have to make here to compensate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Construction Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't send money myself, but I know many who do and the stress this will cause is immense.
- Cartel profits are a problem, but cutting remittances will hurt too many innocent people.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Tech Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the security intention, but straining ties further can foster resentment and fear within communities.
- I may not send much regularly, but I support my extended family's safety net when needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The economic impact on my business could be indirect but noticeable as my customers worry over family abroad.
- I agree there's a need to reduce cartel influences, but this may lead to more harm than good.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired Border Patrol Agent (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy might be effective in reducing cartel funding routes and reinforcing border security.
- However, I'm concerned about transparency and the potential humanitarian fallout.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Student (San Diego, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's hard enough balancing college and work, and this would make it impossible for me to help my family.
- I feel targeted by this policy despite not being involved in any crime.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Policy Analyst (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sanctions may redirect funds appropriately but the full scope of remittances being cut needs more thoughtful analysis.
- Policy should consider phased approaches or remittance exemptions for essential support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Community Organizer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the emotional and financial strain this will place on families we serve.
- Understanding the policy's target is important, but the collateral effects need addressing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy feels like a step backward regarding immigrant support and community well-being.
- The larger goal of reducing cartel influence is clear, but not at the cost of family separation or economic hardship.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
High School Teacher (El Paso, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our school community is deeply integrated cross-border. Halting remittances will affect students' lives and futures.
- While security is crucial, this wasn't the right attack plan.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $515000000 (Low: $410000000, High: $620000000)
Year 3: $530450000 (Low: $422300000, High: $638600000)
Year 5: $561947250 (Low: $447600000, High: $676316000)
Year 10: $630763773 (Low: $502239000, High: $758653800)
Year 100: $15037957208 (Low: $11976413634, High: $18045548650)
Key Considerations
- How enforcement of remittance prohibition would be carried out and its associated costs to government agencies.
- Impact on diplomatic relations with Mexico given the significant economic reliance on remittances.
- Inflationary pressures in Mexico due to a significant reduction in remittance inflows.
- Potential effects on undocumented migrants in the U.S. who rely on remittances as financial support.