Let’s talk about money—specifically, money flying out of the country faster than a kid bolting from chores. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act has an interesting provision that I haven’t heard anyone talk about: a 3.5% tax on money sent abroad by non-citizens, including green card holders and visa workers.

Let’s examine this from an independent Christian conservative perspective: not beholden to party politics, grounded in biblical values, and rooted in good ol’ common sense.

The Case for the Tax

National Sovereignty and Security First

Let’s kick things off with the most fundamental principle of any nation: sovereignty. A country that doesn’t control its borders or its economy isn’t truly in charge, it’s just along for the ride. The federal government isn’t just allowed to prioritize the interests of American citizens—it’s obligated to. That’s not cruelty; that’s called governance.

The 3.5% remittance tax is a bold move in asserting that sovereignty. While some may see it as just another revenue scheme, it’s more than that. This tax sends a clear message: if you’re in this country illegally, gaming the system, and sending untaxed income back to your home country, it’s not going to be business as usual anymore.

Here’s the hard truth: for many people entering the U.S. illegally, the endgame isn’t necessarily to become American. It’s to earn dollars and send them back home. That may be understandable from a human perspective, but it undermines both our labor market and our national cohesion. The remittance tax hits that incentive where it counts, in the wallet. If it becomes significantly more expensive to use America as an ATM for foreign economies, fewer people will attempt to sneak in to do just that.

Think of it as economic border security. We’ve got walls and fences on the southern border—and now we’re adding a financial checkpoint. Illegal activity should never be cost-effective. If this tax helps shift the calculus and makes legal immigration the more sensible route, then it’s doing its job.

And let’s not forget that remittances sent from the U.S. don’t just support families, they often fuel foreign governments, some of which are openly hostile to American values or have little incentive to curb migration. By tightening the outflow, we’re not only protecting our economy, but we’re also taking pressure off broken immigration systems and refusing to subsidize dysfunction abroad.

In short, this tax isn’t just about dollars and cents, it’s about drawing a firm line in the sand and saying, “America takes care of America first.”

Bringing Dollars Back Home

Let’s talk numbers—because numbers don’t lie, even when politicians do. In 2023, Americans sent a jaw-dropping $656 billion overseas in remittances. That’s not chump change. That’s more than the entire gross domestic product of some countries. We’re not just talking about pocket money here; we’re talking about a firehose of cash pouring out of our economy every single year.

Now, imagine applying a modest 3.5% tax on that outflow. You’re looking at over $22 billion in potential revenue annually. That’s not just a line item on a spreadsheet, that’s a game-changer. We could bolster Social Security (which, let’s face it, is wobbling on crutches), invest in roads and bridges that don’t crumble like dry cornbread, or—brace yourself—actually start paying down our $34 trillion national debt.

Here’s the kicker: this tax doesn’t even come out of American pockets. It targets money leaving the country. Think of it as a cover charge for using the U.S. economy as your personal cash cow while the benefits go to a different country entirely. If someone is working here—especially if they’re doing it off the books—and sending money back to a country that gives nothing in return, then yes, it’s fair for Uncle Sam to collect a small toll on that transaction.

And if we can tax hardworking Americans on everything from their income to their groceries, surely we can expect a sliver from billions flying out to support foreign economies. It’s about fairness. If you benefit from America’s opportunities, some of that wealth should stay in America to support the very systems that made it possible.

At its core, this provision is a simple recognition of economic reality: we need to start keeping more of our blessings at home. A country that constantly exports its wealth without return is like a farmer giving away seed and expecting a harvest. If we’re serious about rebuilding this nation—its economy, its infrastructure, its future—then it’s time we put America’s money to work in America.

A Nudge Toward Investing Locally

Let’s ask a simple question: Why send money halfway around the globe when we’ve got struggling neighborhoods, small towns, and Main Streets right here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. that could use a shot in the arm?

That’s the heart of this 3.5% remittance tax. It’s not just about collecting revenue; it’s about changing behavior. It encourages people—especially those working and earning in the United States—to think twice before funneling their dollars abroad and to consider reinvesting in the community they’re actually living in.

When money stays local, good things start to happen. Small businesses get a boost. Local contractors land more work. Families can afford better education and healthcare. It’s a ripple effect, and it all starts with dollars staying in the same country where they were earned.

Think about the power of that. Instead of sending $500 a month overseas, what if that money went toward a local startup, a down payment on a home, or a kid’s college savings? That’s how generational wealth begins, not by exporting prosperity, but by planting it in the soil of your own community.

Local investment builds national unity. When people invest in their surroundings, they tend to care more about their schools, their neighborhoods, and their country. That’s how you build buy-in, pride, and responsibility, not by exporting cash to economies that may not share our values or our commitments to liberty and justice.

Now, nobody’s saying people shouldn’t help their families overseas. Charity begins at home, but it doesn’t have to end there. What this tax does is add just enough friction to encourage a second thought: “Should I send this money abroad, or should I invest it in something that helps me and my community here?”

That’s not government overreach, that’s common-sense encouragement for economic patriotism. It’s a way of nudging people toward building up the very nation that’s giving them opportunity. And in a time when foreign influence and global instability are on the rise, there’s nothing wrong with saying: Let’s take care of home first.

The Case Against the Tax

A Blow to the World’s Poorest

Now here’s where the moral dilemma kicks in. This isn’t just a policy debate. It’s about real people with real needs. Every month, millions of families around the globe rely on remittances to put food on the table, keep the lights on, pay for medicine, and send their kids to school. We’re talking about countries where the American dollar stretches a long way and often spells the difference between dignity and desperation.

Remittances aren’t luxuries; they’re lifelines. When a son in New Jersey sends $200 to his mother in Guatemala, that’s not economic imperialism, that’s love in action. Shrinking that stream by even 3.5% may not sound like much to Washington insiders sipping lattes in Georgetown, but to a family scraping by in a rural village? That’s the grocery money for the month, or the difference between having running water or not.

Here’s the kicker: choking off that support doesn’t solve the immigration issue—it might actually worsen it. When families abroad lose their only reliable source of income, what do you think happens? They look for greener pastures. And where’s the greenest pasture on the planet? You guessed it, the United States. So ironically, a well-meaning tax aimed at reducing illegal immigration could have the unintended consequence of driving more people to our border out of sheer desperation.

And from a Christian perspective, this hits especially hard. Scripture reminds us plainly: “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord” (Proverbs 19:17). When we pass laws that could directly hurt the poorest of the poor, we need to tread carefully. We’re not called to prop up foreign economies, but neither are we called to ignore suffering. There has to be a middle ground.

So yes, we must protect our national interests, but not with a heart of stone. As we weigh the merits of this tax, we must keep in mind that behind every transaction is a human being, often doing their best to honor both their new life in America and their responsibilities back home. Policies that inadvertently punish that kind of responsibility and sacrifice may need a second look—or at the very least, a little fine-tuning.

Pushing People Underground

Here’s where the law of unintended consequences kicks in like a mule. While the 3.5% remittance tax aims to capture revenue and curb illegal financial flows, it might just end up driving more money into the shadows. And when dollars start slipping into the black market, you don’t get more control, you get less.

If folks feel that formal remittance services like Western Union or digital platforms are suddenly too expensive, they’re not going to stop sending money, they’re just going to find new ways to do it. And not the good kind. We’re talking cash couriers, sketchy crypto schemes, or the classic “stuff-it-in-an-envelope-and-hope-it-makes-it” method. That’s not financial innovation; that’s chaos with a dash of risk.

These unregulated methods not only bypass the IRS, but they also bypass every safeguard we have against fraud, trafficking, money laundering, and even terrorism financing. We built financial oversight systems for a reason. Once people start opting out, all that accountability disappears faster than a politician after an election.

And let’s not forget that those who use underground channels often fall prey to scammers and criminals. Desperate people become easy targets. That means more theft, more victimization, and ironically, less protection for the very people this tax was never meant to harm.

From a national security standpoint, it’s a no-brainer. We want to know where the money’s going, who’s sending it, and why. Transparency strengthens both law enforcement and economic stability. But the moment legal paths get too costly, people start slipping through the cracks, and that’s where the real danger lies.

So yes, the government has every right to regulate and tax international financial transfers. But if the tax becomes so burdensome that it nudges honest people into dishonest channels, then we haven’t fixed a problem. Instead, we’ve created a whole new one. Sometimes a heavy-handed approach just pushes people deeper into the shadows, and that’s not where we want America’s money (or morals) to end up.

Punishing the Legal and Lawful

Now here’s the part that really grinds the gears of anyone who believes in fairness and the rule of law. The 3.5% remittance tax isn’t just targeting illegal activity. It casts a wide net that catches legal immigrants, green card holders, and temporary visa workers right alongside the folks it’s supposedly aimed at.

These are people who played by the rules. They waited in line, filled out the paperwork, paid the fees, and earned the right to live and work here legally. They clock in, pay taxes, obey the law, and contribute to the economy. Many of them even serve in our armed forces. And now we’re going to nickel-and-dime them for sending money to help a parent or a sibling in need? That’s not just bad policy, it’s bad faith.

In the name of “revenue” and “security,” this tax risks sending the wrong message: that doing things the right way still gets you punished. And that flies in the face of conservative principles. We believe in rewarding responsibility, not penalizing it. If someone is legally here, earning an honest living, and choosing to support their family back home, that’s not a loophole, that’s a virtue.

From a Christian standpoint, it’s even more troubling. Scripture tells us, “The labourer is worthy of his reward” (1 Timothy 5:18). When we start shaving extra off the top of someone’s paycheck just because they choose to help someone outside our borders, we’re effectively punishing charity. That’s not stewardship, that’s a moral misstep.

Let’s also not ignore the practical outcome: treating legal residents like criminals or freeloaders only sows resentment and discourages integration. We want immigrants to become part of the American fabric, not to feel like second-class citizens who are welcome to pay taxes but not to care for their loved ones.

This is where the policy needs serious fine-tuning. Why not build in exemptions or tax credits for legal residents? Why not target the tax more narrowly to address the real issues—illegal financial flows and untraceable transactions—without sweeping innocent people into the dragnet?

At the end of the day, the strength of a nation isn’t just in its laws, it’s in its fairness. And if we’re not careful, we’ll end up penalizing exactly the kind of character and responsibility we ought to be promoting.

Principles Over Penalties: A Call for Balance

As believers in both truth and grace, we’re called to walk a narrow path; one that upholds justice without sacrificing compassion. “To do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God” (Micah 6:8) isn’t just a memory verse, it’s a blueprint for governance.

The 3.5% remittance tax in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is well-meaning in its goals: safeguarding our economy, protecting national security, and ensuring that the U.S. isn’t used as a piggy bank for bad actors or failed foreign policies. These are worthy aims, and conservatives should never be shy about defending national interests.

But in its current form, the tax swings too wide and too hard. It doesn’t just discourage illegal behavior, it inadvertently punishes the legal and the lawful, the hard-working men and women who followed the rules, paid their dues, and now want to send a little help back to mom and dad overseas.

It also risks unraveling financial transparency by pushing transfers underground and undermining our moral standing by cutting off the lifelines of some of the world’s most vulnerable. In trying to protect our borders, we must be careful not to cross a line ourselves.

A truly balanced, Christian conservative approach begins by drawing a firm line against untraceable and illegal remittance flows, those backdoor transactions that fuel crime, tax evasion, and foreign corruption. It includes a commitment to tightening oversight of underground money-moving networks that operate outside the reach of law and accountability. But just as important, it rejects blanket taxation policies that treat all remittances the same, regardless of whether they’re coming from a cartel mule or a legal visa worker supporting his aging parents. Instead of penalizing the righteous along with the reckless, the policy should provide clear exemptions, thoughtful tax credits, or tiered structures that reward those who follow the law. In short, we need a policy that protects the homeland without punishing those who honor it.

This isn’t about being soft. It’s about being smart and just. Good policy should discourage abuse without disgracing the honest.

The current policy is like using a chainsaw to shape a bonsai tree. We need precision, not brute force. And above all, we need to remember that America isn’t just great because of its laws, it’s great because of its values.

If we want to build a nation that lasts, we must govern with wisdom, lead with integrity, and hold fast to both our sovereignty and our humanity.