RAISE Act

The RAISE (Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment) Act is a bill first introduced in the United States Senate in 2017. Co-sponsored by Republican senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue, the bill seeks to reduce levels of legal immigration to the United States by 50% by halving the number of green cards issued. The bill would also dramatically reduce family-based immigration pathways; impose a cap of 50,000 refugee admissions a year; end the visa diversity lottery; and eliminate the current demand-driven model of employment-based immigration and replace it with a points system. The bill received the support of President Donald Trump, who promoted a revised version of the bill in August 2017, and was opposed by Democrats, immigrant rights groups, and some Republicans.

The 2017 bill (in the 115th Congress) did not receive a vote in the Senate, although a similar immigration bill supported by Trump was defeated in 2018 on a 39–60 vote. In 2019 (during the 116th Congress), Cotton, Perdue, and other Republicans re-introduced the legislation; the bill did not advance.

History

The bill is co-sponsored by Republican senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia, who introduced the bill to the Senate on February 13, 2017, as S. 354.S.354 - RAISE Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018)
Congress.gov. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

On August 2, 2017, Cotton introduced a revised version of the bill, designated S. 1720; this bill was also referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. President Donald Trump, along with Cotton and Perdue, announced it at the White House. Within the Trump White House, Trump advisers Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon promoted and helped shape the bill. The bill has not attracted any additional co-sponsors.

The 2017 bill did not receive a vote in the Senate. A separate bill to restrict legal immigration, supported by Trump, Cotton, and Perdue, was defeated in the Senate by a 39–60 vote. In 2019, Cotton, Perdue, and other Republicans re-introduced the RAISE Act legislation.

Provisions and analysis

The bill would cut legal immigration by half, reducing the number of green cards from more than 1 million to about 500,000. The bill would also remove pathways for siblings and adult children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to apply for permanent lawful residency status in the U.S., limiting the family path to spouses and minor children.Peter Baker
Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half
''New York Times'' (August 2, 2017): "In throwing his weight behind a bill, Mr. Trump added one more long-odds priority to a legislative agenda already packed with them." The bill would also impose a cap of 50,000 refugee admissions a year and would end the visa diversity lottery.

In promoting the legislation, Trump administration officials contend that the bill would increase economic growth and increase wages.Patti Domm
Trump supports immigration bill that could have negative impact on his own agenda
CNBC (August 2,017).Heather Long
It's a 'grave mistake' for Trump to cut legal immigration in half
''Washington Post'' (August 2, 2017). This contention was challenged by economists, who "overwhelmingly predict" that cuts in immigration would have a negative impact on GDP growth. In April 2017, a group of more than 1,400 economists, with views ranging across the political spectrum, sent an open letter to Trump noting the "near universal agreement" on "the broad economic benefit that immigrants to this country bring" and urging him not to seek immigration cuts. The Penn Wharton Budget Model projects that the RAISE Act would increase per-capita GDP by 0.02 percent in the first decade, before falling in the long run by 2040. Cato Institute immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh said that the legislation "would do nothing to boost skilled immigration and it will only increase the proportion of employment-based green cards by cutting other green cards. Saying otherwise is grossly deceptive marketing."

The "only evidence that the administration has cited as justifying its proposals" is the work of economist George Borjas,Binyamin Appelbaum
Fewer Immigrants Mean More Jobs? Not So, Economists Say
''New York Times'' (August 3, 2017). who has defended the bill, arguing that it "makes sense" and that "low-skill immigration, which would likely suffer the largest cuts in the proposed bill, imposes costs on taxpayers and it imposes costs on low-skill workers already here." Other economists have sharply contested Borjas's conclusions; economist Giovanni Peri stated that "The average American worker is more likely to lose than to gain from immigration restrictions" and "most studies put the negative impact on low-skilled wages closer to zero," and Michael Clemens argues that Borjas's position is based on a study with critical flaws.

Support and opposition

The bill and Trump's support for it was hailed by groups favoring restrictive immigration policies, such as NumbersUSA

HOME


Content is Copyleft
Website design, code, and AI is Copyrighted (c) 2014-2017 by Stephen Payne


Consider donating to Wikimedia



As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases