Boost Pay for Immigration Officers; Remittance Surcharges

Summary#

This bill would give extra pay to federal law enforcement officers who do immigration enforcement work. It also adds large fixed surcharges to many international remittance transfers (money sent abroad).

• Main change (pay): Covered officers would get a supplemental payment equal to 25% of their annual basic pay. Officers working in certain listed metropolitan areas (or other areas later designated) would get an extra 15% hazard payment.
• Main change (remittances): The existing 1% remittance transfer fee would stay and a new fixed “specified surcharge” would be added: $199 for transfers to a short list of named countries, $99 for transfers to countries with a visa overstay rate above 2%, or both amounts if both rules apply.
• Policy goal (as stated or implied): Increase compensation for federal personnel doing immigration enforcement and change the cost of sending money abroad to certain countries or to countries with higher visa overstay rates.

What it means for you#

• Immigration enforcement officers (covered employees):

  • Who is affected: Law enforcement officers who perform immigration enforcement tasks (identifying, arresting, detaining, removing people unlawfully present in the U.S.).
  • Pay change: Each covered officer would receive a one-time lump-sum payment equal to 25% of their annual basic pay on the first pay period after enactment, and annually thereafter.
  • Hazard pay: Officers working in the named metropolitan areas (for example, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington-Baltimore) or other areas later designated would get an additional 15% of basic pay as a lump-sum annual payment while the area remains designated.
  • Payment rules: These supplements are paid on top of other pay and are not counted toward an aggregate pay limit in federal law (the bill specifies they are excluded from the calculation under section 5307 of title 5).

• People who send money abroad (remittance senders) and recipients:

  • Higher transfer costs: Remittance transfers would carry the existing 1% charge plus a new fixed surcharge when the recipient is in certain countries. That surcharge is $199 for transfers where the recipient is in one of the listed countries (Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen) and $99 where the recipient is in any country with a visa overstay rate above 2%. Both surcharges apply if both conditions are met.
  • Who pays: Money senders would generally face these higher costs; recipients effectively receive less because of higher fees. The new rules apply to transfers made after the bill is enacted.

• Money transfer businesses and banks:

  • Administrative change: They would need to implement the new surcharge rules, collect the additional fees, and likely update systems and disclosures.

• Government agencies:

  • Designation task: OPM (Office of Personnel Management), DHS (Department of Homeland Security), and the Attorney General must coordinate to name additional hazardous areas and review those designations at least yearly.
  • No spending source specified: The bill does not say how any new remittance revenue would be used.

Expenses#

No publicly available information on an official cost estimate or fiscal note is included with this bill.

• The pay supplements would increase federal compensation costs for the agencies that employ covered officers. The bill does not give an estimate of how many employees are covered or the total annual cost.
• The remittance surcharges would raise the price of transfers to affected countries. That may increase government receipts if collected under tax law but the bill does not state how any revenues would be spent.
• Money transfer businesses would likely face compliance and software update costs to add and track the new surcharges.
• OPM, DHS, and the Department of Justice (Attorney General) would have administrative work to identify and annually review hazardous duty areas.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to raise pay for federal officers who perform immigration enforcement duties. A possible argument for this is that higher pay and hazard supplements could help retain experienced personnel and compensate officers for risk or difficult assignments.
• Targeting extra hazard pay to certain large metropolitan areas and to areas later identified as higher risk could be seen as directing resources to places that federal officials judge to involve elevated risk.
• The remittance surcharge provisions appear intended to change the cost of remittances to specific countries or to countries with higher visa overstay rates; proponents might say this increases funds collected from transfers or creates a policy signal about those destinations. (The bill itself does not state the intended use of any funds collected.)

Opponents' View#

• One concern is cost and budget uncertainty: the bill does not include a fiscal estimate, so total added payroll costs for federal agencies are unclear.
• The remittance surcharges are large fixed amounts ($99 or $199 per transfer). This could sharply raise costs for migrants and families who send small or medium-size remittances to the affected countries, many of which are low-income or experiencing crisis. This could reduce funds reaching vulnerable households.
• The surcharges may encourage people to use informal or unregulated channels to send money, which could raise compliance and anti-money-laundering concerns.
• It is unclear how the list of hazardous duty areas will be applied over time, and tying hazard pay in part to a “significant concentration of aliens unlawfully present” could create incentives or community tensions in areas with large immigrant populations.
• The bill does not say how surcharge revenue (if any) would be allocated to pay for the supplemental payments or other uses. This leaves questions about whether the financial effects will actually offset federal payroll costs.