Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The RAISE Act Takes a Flawed Approach on Immigration Reform
Townhall.com ^ | February 25, 2017 | Helen Raleigh

Posted on 02/25/2017 4:53:23 AM PST by Kaslin

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and Senator David Perdue (R-Georgia) unveiled a bill titled, "the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act," on February 7th. This bill seeks to limit legal immigration to "637,960 in its first year and to 539,958 by its tenth year-a 50 percent reduction from the 1,051,031 immigrants who arrived in 2015." According to Senator Cotton's official website, the Act aims to achieve the reduction of legal immigration by doing the following:

Other than eliminating the visa lottery program, which I support wholeheartedly, the bill does nothing new to fundamentally change our legal immigration system (restricting the number of visas isn't a new approach). For example, it seeks to reform family-based immigration by maintaining some preference while eliminating other preferences. The question we should ask is: why does the government need to set preference categories at all?

The preference system was first installed through the immigration Act of 1952 and further enhanced by the Immigration Act of 1965,which gave preference to family-reunion for relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent residents (a.k.a. green card holders) in the order of unmarried children under 21 years of age, spouses, parents, children older than 21, siblings and extended family members. One obvious flaw of this hierarchy is that it favors the old (parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents) and the young (children younger than 21 years of age) but discriminates against the most likely productive ones (people 21 years old or older, and siblings of U.S. citizens and permanent residents). Thus, this system gives preference to people who are more likely to become financial dependents rather than economic contributors. Empirical evidence shows that after we started admitting immigrants mainly on a family reunification basis in 1965, we also opened up the welfare system to immigrants. By keeping the preference for children younger than 21 while eliminating preference for siblings, the RAISE Act does nothing to fix this problem.

The right approach is to totally eliminate the preference hierarchy. U.S. citizens and green card holders should have the freedom to decide which family members they want to bring to the U.S. We should make it clear that the sponsors themselves have to be financially responsible for whomever they bring into our nation for at least 5 years (after 5 years, a green card holder can apply for U.S. citizenship) and restrict access to social welfare benefits to U.S. citizens only.  As long as we "build a wall" around our welfare system, we as nation shouldn't dictate which family members that the U.S. citizen and green card holders want to bring.

The RAISE Act seeks to codify the number of refugees we bring in on annual basis to 50,000. Historically, the quota for refugees has been set by the U.S. president on annual basis and has fluctuated from as low as 30,000 to as high as 200,000. It gives the executive authority and flexibility to react to refugee crises as the result of world events on a timely basis.  If we codify the refugee quota in an immigration law, we will lose such flexibility. Therefore, I'd rather see the power of determining the annual quota of refugees remain with U.S. president.

Let's not forget that in addition to the refugee program, our current immigration system has a separate category for asylum-seekers.There is no quota on the number of individuals who may be granted permanent residency through asylum in a given year, and there is no clear definition of what constitutes persecution. Asylum seekers have been subjected to far less scrutiny than refugees.Consequently, this is a program that has been riddled with fraud and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has called for additional actions from the Department of Homeland to address the fraud risk in the asylum program specifically. Yet, the RAISE Act fails to address it. The right approach is to combine refugees and asylum seekers into one humanitarian program under one quota that set by U.S. President on annual basis and is subjected to a uniform screening standard. This will allow immigration agents to focus on vetting security threats among applicants.

What I found the most troubling with the RAISE Act is that it assumes it  will "help raise American workers' wages" by reducing legal immigration drastically.  This is an old and beaten- path that we as a nation tried and failed. The last time the United States severely limited its legal immigration was through the 1921 Emergency Quota Act, which capped legal immigration to 350,000 annually. In 1922, the U.S. received only 309,556 new immigrants, compared with 805,228 the prior year.other more influential causes that have had held American workers back, which have nothing to do with immigration.

For example, automation is a far bigger threat to American workers than immigration. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, recently pointed outhow automation has already disrupted car-based transportation and he relayed concerns that autonomous technology will have severe impact on American workers--"Twenty years is a short period of time to have something like 12-15 percent of the workforce be unemployed." He said.

To truly help American workers to get employed and have better wages, Senator Cotton and Senator Perdue need to focus on issues such as education reform, which will help Americans equip themselves with knowledge and skills that employers desire.  If the Senators want to eliminate something, let's eliminate ruinous and job-killing laws and regulations such as the minimum wage requirement and occupation licensing requirements. 

While I believe the RAISE Act is a flawed bill, I do share both Senator Cotton and Senator Perdue's concern for the legal immigration system. A good immigration reform bill should focus on simplification and emphasize skill-based immigration so we will ensure a win-win situation for both our nation and the new immigrants. If they are willing to listen, there are good ideasout there on how to fix our broken immigration system.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: immigration

1 posted on 02/25/2017 4:53:23 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Why do you post this kind of BS? What is the point?

For example, automation is a far bigger threat to American workers than immigration.

Oh so automation is threat to workers wages? So logically let in more more immigrants to complete for an ever dwindling labor market. /sarc

2 posted on 02/25/2017 4:58:49 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va
To piss you off, that's why.

If you think I am going to ask you what I can post, you are greatly mistaken.

GOT IT?

3 posted on 02/25/2017 5:06:55 AM PST by Kaslin ( Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Re: Build a wall around our welfare system

Really? So?....Who is going to withhold million dollar treatment to a premature infant?

Who is going to pay the $20,000/per year/ per immigrant student in a government school? ( Yes, that **is** what it costs to school a kid in a government school.)

4 posted on 02/25/2017 5:20:40 AM PST by wintertime (tStop treating government teachers like they are reincarnated Mother Teresas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

SMHTYSC


5 posted on 02/25/2017 5:26:00 AM PST by Kaslin ( Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I did a Google search for the definition of SMHTYSC. No results.

Please define for me and the rest of us.

6 posted on 02/25/2017 5:30:45 AM PST by wintertime (tStop treating government teachers like they are reincarnated Mother Teresas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

We need an almost complete moratorium on immigration for at least a couple of decades. It’s going to take a generation at least to assimilate the people who are here now.

L


7 posted on 02/25/2017 5:34:16 AM PST by Lurker (America burned the witch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

You like to post leftest agitprop. You probably like to fart in the elevator and snicker about it. Get it?


8 posted on 02/25/2017 5:34:27 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

Schools, education are not welfare. Education of immigrants is a legit topic to debate. But it is separate from welfare.

Welfare is TANF, EBT,SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, Kidcare, Section 8, etc.

No non-citizen should come here or be here to apply for or collect welfare. This includes legals, illegals, refugees and special categories. Non-citizens are not covered by the 14th Amendment and have no equal protection of privileges and emoulments.

Naturalized citizens (who are covered by the 14th) should not be allowed to apply for or collect welfare. That would have to be a term of their contract that is part of the naturalization process.

We should not create a new dependent class.

Anchor babies are a totally different topic that could be debated, but is separate from non-citizens as anchor babies are covered by the 14th Amendment.


9 posted on 02/25/2017 5:39:47 AM PST by spintreebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Hell, pitch them all out. Use prison labor to work factory farms. Pay them minimum wage, rebate a portion of that to the state(s) holding them, and it’s a win-win.

Minimum security prisoners can be a good source of labor for these types of endeavors. Would also work for municipal and road construction (get past the unions), as well as wholesale reclamation projects around the nation.

Better than warehousing convicts in environments that are only conducive to continued criminal behavior.


10 posted on 02/25/2017 5:55:33 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2017; I pray we make it that long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I like the lottery system. Only those people who are willing to do all the paperwork and health and background checks are eligible. It has a reputation for cheating and abuse by immigration personnel, but the basic idea is good.


11 posted on 02/25/2017 5:59:37 AM PST by VanShuyten ("...that all the donkeys were dead. I know nothing as to the fate of the less valuable animals.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten

The USA is de industrializing and doesn’t need any more immigrants. A 25 year stop in all immigration would be a good thing so we can sort out this mess.


12 posted on 02/25/2017 6:04:35 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

How about no immigration visas for any person whose race or ethnicity would qualify them for any affirmative action program?

Essentially, repeal Hart-Celler and return to moderate levels of immigration, focused on White Europeans. Pre Hart-Celler levels of immigration would equate to roughly net zero (people leaving equal people arriving).


13 posted on 02/25/2017 6:52:18 AM PST by evilC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob
Who will pay the $20,000/per year/ per child to school the immigrant child? Someone will and it is likely NOT the immigrant parents.

And....When that legal immigrant mom has a baby or ( worse) a premature baby who gets to pay for that? Who will deny medical treatment to an infant? Someone is going to pay for that and it is likely NOT the immigrant parents.

And....Remember. Government schooling is an entitlement. Some call it welfare. I am among those who call it middle class welfare.

14 posted on 02/25/2017 7:02:34 AM PST by wintertime (tStop treating government teachers like they are reincarnated Mother Teresas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
What I found the most troubling with the RAISE Act is that it assumes it will "help raise American workers' wages" by reducing legal immigration drastically. This is an old and beaten- path that we as a nation tried and failed. The last time the United States severely limited its legal immigration was through the 1921 Emergency Quota Act, which capped legal immigration to 350,000 annually. In 1922, the U.S. received only 309,556 new immigrants, compared with 805,228 the prior year.other more influential causes that have had held American workers back, which have nothing to do with immigration.

We have just had three of the four highest decades of immigration in our nation's history. In 1970, one in 21 was foreign born; today, it is less than one in 8, the highest in 105 years; and by 2023 one in 7, the highest in our history. The demograhic impact is enormous. Immigration drives 80% of our population growth.

87% of the 35 million legal permanent immigrants (equivalent to the current population of Canada) since 1990 are minorities as defined by the USG. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities and by 2043 non-Hispanic whites will be 50% of the population compared to 89% in 1970 and 63% today. Demography is destiny. Immigrants and minorities vote more than two to one Dem. Unless legal immigration is curtailed significantly, the Dems will be the permanent majority party within a decade.


15 posted on 02/25/2017 7:08:15 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob
No non-citizen should come here or be here to apply for or collect welfare.

But they are big league. Immigrants, legal and illegal, use the welfare system to a much greater degree than the native born. We are importing poverty.

...as anchor babies are covered by the 14th Amendment.

An interpretation that needs to be challenged in the courts and Congress. Trump could start the ball rolling by declaring that the children of illegal aliens are no longer considered to be American citizens. The issue will then be run the courts. If that fails, then a constitutional amendment would be necessary. There are only 33 countries in the world that have birthright citizenship, and most of them are in the "New World." The only developed countries that have it are Canada and the US. It doesn't exist in Europe or Japan.

16 posted on 02/25/2017 7:16:18 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kabar

The point about modern “immigration” is quite simply to make whites a minority in their own country.

The Left hates Whitey and wants to drown him.

No other nation is undergoing this incredible democide, although some European countries are getting close.

But you will not hear anyone on the pro-mass immigration side advocating for open borders in South America, China, India, the Middle East, Southeast Asia and especially Africa.

No. Those lands are “sacred”, and reserved only for the historical races that occupy them.

White lands...must be destroyed.

That is ALL this is about and nothing more. All the Social Justice claptrap, fuzzy libertarian economic rationalizations, and multicultural arguments like the ones advanced by this idiot author are just eyewash to obscure the one single reason for what is happening.


17 posted on 02/25/2017 7:38:48 PM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson