When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Sources

The Good, Bad And Pointless Of Trump's Immigration Plan

Admitting newcomers based on their skills is smart; cutting their numbers in half is a mistake.

Tired, poor, huddled
Tired, poor, huddled
Noah Smith

-OpEd-

President Donald Trump just endorsed a plan to change the way the U.S. immigration system operates. Half of the plan is very good. The other half is bad and counterproductive.

The plan, known as the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, was developed by Republican senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia. It would do two things. First, it would introduce a merit-based system that would admit immigrants according to their education level, language skills and professional qualifications, similar to what Canada and Australia use. Second, it would cut the total amount of legal immigration in half, reducing immigration based on family reunification to immediate family members only, and ending the lottery system for green-card permanent residence permits.

The first half of this plan — the merit-based system — is a very good idea. I've long advocated for exactly this shift in the way the U.S. screens immigrants.

High-skilled immigration is important for several reasons. First, although low-skilled immigrants — manual laborers, blue-collar workers and the like — create a small but noticeable amount of wage and job competition for native-born Americans, skilled immigrants do the opposite. According to a recent National Academy of Sciences report, which took input from both immigration boosters and detractors, skilled immigrants actually raise the wages of their high-skilled U.S. peers. This probably happens because knowledge industries rely crucially on new ideas — the more smart people we have creating new ideas, the more other smart people can take those ideas and use them for other applications.

The first half of this plan — the merit-based system — is a very good idea.

Also, the NAS report found that although low-skilled immigrants don't have much of an impact on government finances, high-skilled immigrants create a strong positive fiscal boost. The aging U.S. population needs high-earning young people to pay for old people's pensions and retirements, to fund the public services they depend on, and to buy their houses and stocks. Skilled immigrants are the way to pay for native-born Americans to have a comfortable retirement. Finally, skilled immigrants are a bit quicker to integrate into American culture. That means they will enjoy rapid mobility, and won't become a permanent outsider class.

So high-skilled immigrants are pure gravy for a country like the U.S. Canada has been enjoying great success with its points-based immigration program — the RAISE Act would, in this way, represent the adoption of best practice from the U.S."s neighbor to the north.

Counterproductive and pointless

But the RAISE Act also has a dark side — the deep cuts to the total number of legal immigrants allowed into the country every year. This will partially defeat the purpose of the points-based system the act would create. It makes no sense to shift to a skills-based immigration system, but then limit the number of skilled workers who are allowed in.

Senators Cotton and Perdue at the press conference on the RAISE Act Photo: Ron Sachs/ZUMA

Fewer immigrants means less support for the aging native-born U.S. population. It means a greater strain on Social Security and Medicare. It means pensions for city workers and police and firefighters going bankrupt. And it means stagnation of housing prices, because of reduced demand from young high-earning workers. In other words, slashing immigration would hurt the very native-born people that Trump's immigration advisers, like Stephen Miller, claim to want to protect.

Miller, and the RAISE Act's sponsors, probably believe that slashing legal immigration will mostly keep out low-skilled laborers. But they're wrong. They've missed the big shift in U.S. immigration patterns that has happened over the past decade. Low-education workers have almost completely stopped coming into the country, so that more and more of the immigration the U.S. now gets consists of people with degrees.

So the RAISE Act is half-wise reasonable policy.

This means that slashing overall immigration numbers will simply reduce the total number of high-skilled immigrants coming to boost the U.S. economy. It's counterproductive and pointless to increase the percentage of skilled immigrants while reducing the overall number.

This ill-advised move is probably to assuage the anxieties of those Americans who believe that immigrants are displacing them and destroying their native culture. Trump advisers have expressed this fear in the past. But overall, Americans are becoming more positive and welcoming in their attitude toward immigrants. Most of the country doesn't share Miller's trepidation.

So the RAISE Act is half-wise reasonable policy, half-counterproductive fear-based mistake. The plan should be changed by simply dropping the second part and keeping the first. Prudent Republicans, such as Jeb Bush, have suggested doing exactly that. The U.S. would benefit greatly from a shift to skills-based immigration, but the overall number of people coming in shouldn't be reduced.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Future

Injecting Feminism Into Science Is A Good Thing — For Science

Feminists have generated a set of tools to make science less biased and more robust. Why don’t more scientists use it?

As objective as any man

Anto Magzan/ZUMA
Rachel E. Gross

-Essay-

In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, a mystery played out across news headlines: Men, it seemed, were dying of infection at twice the rate of women. To explain this alarming disparity, researchers looked to innate biological differences between the sexes — for instance, protective levels of sex hormones, or distinct male-female immune responses. Some even went so far as to test the possibility of treating infected men with estrogen injections.

This focus on biological sex differences turned out to be woefully inadequate, as a group of Harvard-affiliated researchers pointed out earlier this year. By analyzing more than a year of sex-disaggregated COVID-19 data, they showed that the gender gap was more fully explained by social factors like mask-wearing and distancing behaviors (less common among men) and testing rates (higher among pregnant women and health workers, who were largely female).

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Writing contest - My pandemic story
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ