Trump, Senators Announce Proposal for Legal Immigration Reform – The RAISE Act

Posted by Tina

The RAISE Act should cause a few heads to explode on both sides of the aisle but it moves the conversation about immigration in a positive direction. It also aligns nicely with Trumps promise to Make America Great Again. The President, along with Senate bill sponsors Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.), held a press conference this morning to introduce the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act. The proposed legislation represents a shift in policy to a merit-based system that cuts the number of people we admit per year in half and requires high level skills and proficiency in English. The President said the bill is designed to support American businesses that need stem skilled workers and to protect lower skilled jobs for American workers. The policy shift will also encourage higher wages for American workers, a group that has suffered downward pressure with the influx of low skilled workers over the last :

The measure reflects Trump’s rhetoric during the 2016 campaign, when he argued that the spike in legal immigration over the past several decades has taken job opportunities away from American citizens and threatened national security.

“As a candidate, I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers and taxpayers and that’s why we are here today,” he said, adding the measure would “reduce poverty, increase wages and save taxpayers billions and billions of dollars.”

The United States has previously taken steps to manage and limit immigration following massive influxes of people and periods of economic decline in wages:

In 1917, Congress enacted legislation requiring immigrants over 16 to pass a literacy test, and in the early 1920s immigration quotas were established. The Immigration Act of 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent of the total number of people of each nationality in America as of the 1890 national census

We have just experienced the worst economic situation since the Great Depression, a condition that has overwhelmed the budgets of many families, educational systems, and state and local governments, a condition that has decimated the middle class. This policy shift would support Trumps vision to greatly improve the economy, job opportunities, and wages and help to strengthen American families and communities.

Your thoughts?

This entry was posted in Constitution and Law. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Trump, Senators Announce Proposal for Legal Immigration Reform – The RAISE Act

  1. Chris says:

    “We’re against illegal immigration, not legal immigration!”

    “Actually, yeah, let’s make some of that legal immigration illegal.”

  2. Libby says:

    “We have just experienced the worst economic situation since the Great Depression, …”

    So why are you and Peggy both trying to tell me it ended eight years ago, six months into the OA?

    You are both deeply weird. You can’t be adjusting reality from post to post to suit your prejudices. Well, you can, and do … but it’s deeply weird.

    • Tina says:

      “So why are you and Peggy both trying to tell me it ended eight years ago, six months into the OA?”

      Because it did! It was followed by a long state of stagnacy.

      A recession is a thing. Wikipedia’s definition:

      n economics, a recession is a business cycle contraction which results in a general slowdown in economic activity.[1][2] Macroeconomic indicators such as GDP (gross domestic product), investment spending, capacity utilization, household income, business profits, and inflation fall, while bankruptcies and the unemployment rate rise. In the United Kingdom, it is defined as a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters.[3][4]

      Recessions generally occur when there is a widespread drop in spending (an adverse demand shock). This may be triggered by various events, such as a financial crisis, an external trade shock, an adverse supply shock or the bursting of an economic bubble. Governments usually respond to recessions by adopting expansionary macroeconomic policies, such as increasing money supply, increasing government spending and decreasing taxation.

      Some of those fixes work and other do not. In the Spring of 2009 the negative growth stopped and the nation began a recovery. Then Obama chose increasing government spending, increasing the money supply, and stupid tax breaks that encouraged borrowing (debt) not exactly what business and taxpayers needed. The result was an economy that bumped along under 3% for his entire presidency.

      See also article here.

      We’ve been over this sp many times before. I know you aren’t really a dim bulb so what’s between you and learning how an economy works at basic levels?

  3. Libby says:

    I find it very interesting that the bill’s sponsors are both from agricultural states whose producers are already howling cause they can’t get help. I’m all for it, however. I’m looking forward to listening to you howl when you’re paying $3 a piece for bruised peaches.

    • Tina says:

      $3 a piece for bruised peaches? Why does that bother you? Aren’t you in favor of organic foods? They often come bruised and much more expensive.

      In California you Bay Area elites have pretty much destroyed work for ag labor in the Central Valley because of your fondness for the Delta smelt. It’s curious since you don’t mind frying and bashing birds to death with alternative energy tech.

      Trump is a businessman. If ag needs workers and Americans wont do it a way forward will be forthcoming.

      You guys on the left just don’t get it, We have a right as a nation to choose who we let into our country. We can do that with strong laws and enforcement of our laws. Anything goes has created chaos, crime, problems in our schools and at a great cost to taxpayers.

      It’s stupid to think we have to give up jobs, safety, better education for our kids and a smaller tax burden for a few fruit pickers when there’s a way to have both. Face it…you guys don’t know how to govern effectively.

      • Chris says:

        “Trump is a failed businessman.”

        Fixed that for you.

      • Libby says:

        “Trump is a businessman. If ag needs workers and Americans wont do it a way forward will be forthcoming.”

        Like what, for instance? You say “businessman” like it’s some kind of magic wand. And applying the term to a five-time bankrupt might not be quite the thing … if you want to preserve the reputation of businessmen.

        • Chris says:

          As we know from the leaked transcripts, Trump is a terrible negotiator. He couldn’t come up with any reason to persuade Nieto to help him pay for the wall other than “Because I really want it and if you don’t give it to me the media will be so mean to me!”

  4. J. Soden says:

    Steven Miller does a great job schooling CNN/FNN’s Jim Acosta on the new immigration plan:
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/08/02/cosmopolitan-bias-stephen-miller-rips-cnns-jim-acosta-about-facts-on-immigration/

    Score: Miller 100 Acosta: zip, zero nada
    Well done, Mr. Miller!!

  5. Post Scripts says:

    It is just mind boggling that there is any controversy over wanting to strengthen our country and protect our values and culture? Geez, imagine 50 years ago NOT really wanting or caring if immigrants could speak our language and have some skills so they are employable? We would have been thought those people stupid and we would have been right. But, today, almost half the country thinks a merit based immigration system is just terrible and racist!!! Maybe they should try selling that idea to Harvard or any of the Ivy League elites? How long would any of these places remain a top ranked college if they merely had a quota admittance system? The quality of our citizens is what keeps America great, it’s not just diversity for the sake of being politically correct. Our people need to be productive, to be workers, leaders, skilled people with family units, believers in capitalism, appreciating our history and so on. There is just no other way we’re going to make it, it’s so blatantly obvious to me.

    • Tina says:

      To me also, Jack.

      But we aren’t overly burdened by all of those PC and globalist rules. 😉 Their’s is a reality built on lies and pure fantasy.

    • Chris says:

      Jack, most of our immigrants are already learning English and doing hard work. The notion that they aren’t is pure propaganda with no factual basis. Conservative think tanks like CATO and AEI have documented that our current crop of immigrants is good for our economy. These institutions actually believe in the free market and recognize that interfering with it to block immigrants from coming and working here is counterproductive. There is no reason for these proposed immigration restrictions other than to further appease Trump’s base. He opened his campaign by promoting unfounded fear against immigrants and that’s all he’s doing now.

      • Tina says:

        I have more time now….

        “…most of our immigrants are already learning English and doing hard work. The notion that they aren’t is pure propaganda …”

        Where in this directive does it refer in any way to people already here?

        The idea is to encourage self-reliance and assimilation in future legally documented immigrants…a very good idea.

        The notion that the undocumented are all people who care about America and just want to work is a position you on the left take, often when shouting “racist,” that is not backed by fact:

        A new report by the Texas Department of Public Safety has provided data on the number of illegal alien arrests over the past six years, just for the state of Texas alone.

        According to the report, from the period between June 1, 2011, through July 31, 2017, more than 228,000 illegal alien criminals were booked into Texas jails.

        The arrested criminals – all of whom were in the United States illegally – have been charged with a combined total of over 606,000 criminal offenses during their criminal careers.

        The Department of Homeland Security reported that at least 66 percent (over 152,000) of the arrested criminals had been in the United States illegally at the time of their previous arrest. (see charts) …

        … out of the 45,493 foreign-born inmates currently being held in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 41,554 of those are non-citizens, and nearly 54 percent of those are slated for deportation. These numbers do not reflect those being held in local jails across the country.

        Is it any wonder our prisons are full and the cost has grown to be such a burden?

        I can’t imagine how you can oppose measures that will give us better control of our borders, create safer streets, lower the cost of state, federal and local services, and lessen the burden for teachers in many school districts across the nation. To what end do you fight against common sense, responsible control of our borders?

        More facts, February, 2017, here:

        Last year alone, the IRS discovered more than 1 million Americans whose Social Security numbers were stolen by illegal immigrants, but officials never bothered to tell the taxpayers themselves, the agency’s inspector general said in a withering new report released in August of last year.

        Investigators first alerted the IRS to the problem five years ago, but it’s still not fixed, the inspector general said, and a pilot program meant to test a solution was canceled — and fell woefully short anyway. … (sloppiness)

        … Illegally employed aliens send billions of dollars annually to their home countries, rather than spending it in the United States and helping stimulate the American economy. In October 2008 alone, $2.4 billion was transferred to Mexico.

        American workers suffer a lousy economy while Mexico’s is supplemented by $2.4 billions? And you can’t see anything but Trumps base being “appeased?”

        Hate to say it but that makes you a bit of an ass.

        Decades long sloppy immigration policy has resulted in negative outcomes for the undocumented as well as the local communities and taxpayers:

        An estimated 40 percent of non-elderly undocumented immigrants have no health insurance.

        Guess where they go for healthcare?

        Additional burdens:

        Programs that serve undocumented immigrants include school meal programs, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Head Start, and various in-kind emergency services. Undocumented immigrants are also eligible for Emergency Medicaid. … The services provided vary by state. Emergency Medicaid is estimated to cost about $2 billion per year … most of that cost is thought to be attributable to unauthorized immigrants. …

        … Undocumented immigrants are legally required to have access to K-12 public school, and almost all K-12 education funding comes from state and local governments. (taxpayers and homeowners, some with kids in crowded classrooms challenged by language concerns) …

        … About three quarters of children of undocumented immigrants are citizens. A study using 2014 data estimated that about 40 percent of all adult undocumented immigrants live with U.S. citizen minor or adult children. Therefore, although undocumented immigrants are not eligible for most benefits, their households often receive support. … Because so little federal assistance is available, some states and localities bear a disproportionate burden. (California is one)

        It’s frustrating that you deny the seriousness of these realities.

        It’s frustrating that you assume racism in those who do take them seriously.

        It’s frustrating that, in particular with respect to Mexico and nations south of their border, the left’s policies enable those governments to continue to ignore the plight of their own citizen’s. Go to America, those fools will take care of you and send booty back home!

        It’s frustrating that left policies do nothing to encourage those foreign citizens to demand better of their own governments.

        It’s more than annoying that you assume that superior tone with respect to the President and the more than qualified people he has placed to clean up the mess your leadership has made.

  6. Tina says:

    There were 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants in the US as of 2015 according to PEW. Also, “The U.S. civilian workforce includes 8 million unauthorized immigrants, accounting for 5% of those who were working or were unemployed and looking for work.” At least for now those people are not being escorted out of the country (undocumented criminals are) so we already have a significant number of people from other countries that are “good for our country” living and working in our country. 66% of those people have been here for at least a decade. It is not “counterproductive” to slow down and manage the influx when our own citizens are not able to find work and are often displaced by cheap labor which puts downward pressure on wage growth!

    Chris your opinion is biased and does not flow from being fully informed.

  7. Tina says:

    An excellent article about the RAISE Act, immigration, and the economy is well worth a read in full. Here’s a relevant excerpt:

    Immigration and the Archaic Growth Paradigm
    Put simply: economic growth occurs when, and only when, either more stuff is made, or better stuff is made. For example, America’s economy grows when it produces more cars, or (all other things remaining equal) more fuel-efficient cars. This logic applies to all types of production, whether goods or services. This serves as the axiomatic starting point.

    Next question: how to make more stuff? There are two options. First, work harder. For example, want more wheat? Plant more fields. Need more legal research? Work overtime. In all cases the common variable is to add more labor. This is known as the archaic growth paradigm, and it boils down to the simple maxim: more input, more output.

    The archaic growth paradigm is, unsurprisingly, how ancient civilizations generally understood economic growth. For example: when Roman emperors needed more swords, the only solution was to add labor (train more blacksmiths). Of course, doing so displaced labor from elsewhere in the economy, and this caused a cascade of labor scarcity. To end said scarcity, the Romans, like all ancient societies, ended up waging war to capture slaves and tribute—thereby adding noncitizen labor to supplement their economy. Basically, places like Egypt were forced to ship grain and wine to Rome, so that Romans could focus on war, art, and architecture. This labor made the Romans richer, at their foes’ expense. The problem with the archaic growth paradigm is that it is zero-sum: Rome only got richer if Egypt got poorer.

    A much better way to expand the economy instead is to increase productivity; that is, make more stuff in the same amount of time. This is called the industrial growth paradigm. It is how countries truly get rich. Industrial growth breaks the link between population and production, and allows economies to grow exponentially.

    The best example of this is what happened at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. In 1785, Edmund Cartwright invented the power loom, which made British textile workers 40 times as productive. By the 1820s, after power looms were widely adopted in British mills, Britain produced as much cloth as the rest of Europe combined. Not only did this invention make the British exceedingly rich on a per-person basis, but it also changed the way people thought about economic growth: the paradigm switched from being population-driven to productivity-driven. This continues to be true to this day.

    Where does immigration fit into all this? For the most part, immigration falls under the archaic growth model: more immigrants mean more people, and therefore more production. Therefore, more immigration will undoubtedly grow the economy, but it will not necessarily make it more productive. Therefore, immigration is theoretically neutral with respect to the industrial growth paradigm: it neither makes Americans richer nor poorer.

    But is economic growth for the sake of economic growth a worthwhile goal?

    No.

    The size of the economy does not matter; what matters is the size of each person’s share of that economy. Think of it this way: would you prefer to live in Denmark or India? Denmark has a tiny economy, but the average Dane is quite rich. Conversely, India has a very large economy, but each Indian is relatively poor. The answer is obvious: you would prefer Denmark. In short: the size of the pie is irrelevant, what matters is how big your piece is.

    This observation dovetails with the immigration debate perfectly: immigration is only economically justified if it makes everyone in the nation richer, not the nation itself richer—immigration for immigration’s sake, just like economic growth for growth’s sake, is a vapid justification. It is irrational. Immigration is a policy choice, it is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.