The Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act (RAISE Act), introduced by Republican Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA) at a White House press conference with President Trump recently, is the latest assault on immigrants and our heritage. If passed, the RAISE Act would screen visa applicants using a point system based on a person's age, education, English ability, job offer salary, investments and more.
Although some have long promoted the idea that family-based immigrants do little to help the USA economy, hard statistics prove otherwise. "With Democrats struggling to connect with working-class voters who've struggled from stagnating wages for decades, maybe they should take a page from themselves".
And the plain fact is that studies have shown that halting immigration does not boost the job market for "American" workers; it just makes it more difficult for employers to fill jobs with qualified people willing to work hard. The region still saw a lot more deaths than births and lost overall population, but in short, immigrants have been propping up the Pittsburgh metro area population.
I know this because I pulled out some of the files from my employment-based immigration practice and applied the bill's standards to real people (though some details are changed to preserve confidentiality).
Trump's draconian approach is contradicted by data and economic sense, and is dictated by little more than racism and cruel insensitivity to families that are being torn apart. Was she a hater? There is less willingness to give priority to those escaping from poor economies, which suggests that many Americans agree with the proposal's premise of reducing immigration from low-skilled, poor people.
Top Trump White House aides have been working with Republican Senators Cotton and Perdue on the bill that - if passed - would dramatically remake the current immigration system, which allows a number of ways to bring family members to the U.S. along with job-based visas. Besides, my grandmother taught me so much about love and sacrifice long after my childhood. It is based on the faulty assumption that immigrant families merit minimal consideration. Nearly certainly, a shift to a skills-based system would also have unintended consequences, and, without a cap on legal immigration, these consequences could have an even greater magnitude.
"For the family-based system, halving the numbers would come at the strong price of reducing opportunities for family unity, a deeply rooted value in US immigration history", the think tank said in its analysis. Prior to the early 1900's, most immigrants to the USA were Northern Europeans. John McCain (R-AZ), who is set on working with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to revive a plan to fix the country's immigration system once he returns to work in the nation's capital.
Among those who voted for the 2007 bill were Mr. Obama, then-Sen. Instead, the bill will have negative economic impact on both American and foreign-born workers.
In lieu of the current family and employment-based categories, a points-based migration (combining the features of the Australian and Canadian selection system) is proposed.
Support for some of the other provisions in the bill isn't as strong but still exceeds opposition.
Mr. Krikorian said the change in Democrats' attitude stems from anti-Trump sentiment - "anything Trump is for, they have to be against" - and from changing politics within the Democratic Party, where individual immigration programs now have key constituents as backers. They don't argue for "open borders" as such.
While citizens could still apply to bring spouses and minor children here, the plan would get rid of preferences for siblings and adult children.
These are but a few of the particulars in the legislation, which will probably face the same fate as other proposed overhauls of the immigration system have in the last 50 years.
So did Sens. Susan M. Collins of ME and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, two other Republicans still in the chamber, also switched from yes to no.