Tag Archives: Ecuador

One Fiscal Impact Of President Trump’s Immigration Policies

Posted on by

On Sunday, Breitbart posted an article about the amount of money flowing out of America to other countries via Western Union.

The article reports:

In another example of the Trump effect, money transfer giant Western Union is reporting that its revenue from cash transfers to locations outside the U.S. has seen a 12 percent decline this year.

Migrants living in the U.S. both legally and illegally have traditionally been the greatest source of U.S. dollars flowing out of America and into foreign nations, even dwarfing the amount of foreign aid lavished on the world by the U.S. government. But with Donald Trump’s focus on immigration, Western Union is seeing far fewer customers needing their services.

The money that flows out of America through the hands of illegal immigrants is money that is not being put into the American economy. Having a large number of people working in America and sending their earnings out of the country puts a drag on the American economy.

The article notes:

“Recent policy changes have led to a substantial decline in border crossings and an increase in enforcement actions including workplace inspections and deportations which have created uncertainty and hesitation within migrant communities. These developments continue to impact customer behavior,” McGranahan (Western Union CEO Devin McGranahan) said during the call with investors.

The loss of business sent Western Union’s stock down 15 percent this year.

The article concludes:

In January 2025, Nicaragua received $373.5 million in remittances, for instance. A World Bank report found that remittances amounted to 27 percent of Nicaragua’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2024.

Other nations receiving huge amounts in cash sent home by foreign nationals living in the U.S. include El Salvador ($8.479 billion in 2024), Peru ($4.945 billion), Ecuador ($6.54 billion), and India ($135.46 billion).

By contrast, the U.S. government only lays out about $80 billion a year in direct foreign aid.

While many criticize foreign aid doled out by Congress, claiming that the U.S. doesn’t really benefit from the expenditures, remittances are fully a detriment to America. It is money that does not go to benefit our local stores, our schools, our cities, or anything else. It is cash summarily sent away to benefit other countries.

This is not small change.

This Might Have Interesting Implications For American Politics

Posted on by

The Gateway Pundit is reporting today that Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno said that the UK has provided written assurances that they will not extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to any country where he will face the death penalty.

I really don’t have an opinion about Julian Assange. Obviously he broke the law by leaking information that was classified. Whether or not those leaks put anyone in danger, I don’t know. I guess if you are concerned with Julian Assange and his leaks, you should also look at the information taken off Hillary Clinton’s private server that actually did put people in danger. At any rate, I don’t feel as if I know enough about what was actually leaked to understand his case. However, his problems with the American government began about 2008. The Obama administration was known to be harsh on any whistleblowers, and it is possible that Assange was simply a whistleblower. It is also possible that if Assange had successfully hacked into the files of the Obama administration he would be a reliable source on President Obama’s use of government agencies to target his political enemies. We know that happened with the IRS and conservative organizations, and it is becoming obvious that there were other instances where conservatives were spied upon–for example Sharyl Attkisson.

The article at The Gateway Pundit concludes:

It was recently revealed through a filing error that Assange has been secretly charged in the United States — though the nature of the charges remains unknown.

At the end of November, a judge heard arguments about unsealing the charges, but no decision was made.

The US government argued that the press and the public have no right to know what the charges against the publisher actually are. He explained that he would be willing to provide more information in a closed setting.

The UK has refused to acknowledge the findings of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD), which found that he is being arbitrarily and unlawfully detained and must be immediately released and compensated.

As Matt Taibbi recently wrote in a must read op-ed for Rolling Stone, “the more likely eventuality is a prosecution that uses the unpopularity of Assange to shut one of the last loopholes in our expanding secrecy bureaucracy. Americans seem not to grasp what might be at stake. Wikileaks briefly opened a window into the uglier side of our society, and if publication of such leaks is criminalized, it probably won’t open again.”

Stay tuned.

The Future In America?

Posted on by

Yesterday Lifezette reported that Julian Assange’s internet connection at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London was severed Sunday, according to WikiLeaks.

The article includes the following:

“Julian Assange’s internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans,” the organization tweeted around 10:30 p.m. on Sunday evening.

WikiLeaks has not pointed a finger directly at any specific government, nor has it provided any evidence that a state actor is indeed responsible for the attack on Assange’s internet link.

Wikileaks has been a major player in the American presidential campaign. One can only speculate as to who actually cut the cord.

The article states:

However, WikiLeaks has been a major inconvenience for the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration of late, releasing a hoard of hacked emails from Clinton’s campaign Chairman John Podesta. So far over 12,000 of the alleged 50,000 Podesta emails in WikiLeaks’ possession have been released.

Both the U.S. government and the Clinton campaign have blamed these leaks on Russia and have sought to paint WikiLeaks as some sort of satellite department of Russian intelligence. If a state actor is truly responsible for pulling the plug on Assange’s internet connection, current events strongly suggest the actor with the most motivation would be the United States.

You have to wonder if the American government cut the cord. The thing to remember when viewing this is the degree to which Donald Trump is a threat to the status quo and the establishment. There is little doubt that his presidency would involving cleaning house in Washington and removing a lot of dead wood. It is quite likely that some of that corruption and dead wood had something to do with cutting the WikiLeaks internet connection. Is this the direction freedom of speech will take if Hillary Clinton is elected?

Whatever The Cause, Follow The Money

Posted on by

Yesterday the U.K. Daily Mail reported that Kerry Kennedy stands to make $40 million dollars from her support of the Ecuadorian rain forests.

The article reports:

Local courts recently ordered Chevron to pay $18 billion in damages-which the company is now appealing- and if the decision is upheld, $40 million of that money could go straight to Ms Kennedy.  

The New York Post reports that Ms Kennedy, 52, was hired to put a well-known face on the issue, and she has publicly campaigned for the cause by appearing on CNN and writing an op-ed piece for The Huffington Post.

In the 2009 Huffington Post piece, Ms Kennedy told of her trip to the northern area of the country where Texaco- an oil company later bought and now represented by Chevron- drilled about 350 oil wells throughout the rain forest.

I don’t know if Chevron did $18 billion in damages to the Ecuadorian rain forest. I have no idea how you measure that sort of thing. But I do know that paying Kerry Kennedy $40 million dollars is not going to help the Ecuadorian rain forests in any way. How much of the $18 billion sought in the lawsuit will go to the people impacted by whatever damage was done to the rain forest? Who actually pays the $18 billion if the people asking for it win the case? Who actually benefits from this whole legal exercise? This is the sort of thing that makes me question the motives of many of the people who claim to be out to save the planet.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta