Immigration Is The “Go To” Play
It might be shocking to some that he is now targeting legal immigrants and not “illegal immigrants” as he has campaigned to do. For me, however, this isn’t shocking. Trump’s disdain for every racial and ethnic minority group is well documented.
Besides, this is the same asshole who surrounded himself with white nationalists like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, at the White House. Plus, with Trump’s approval rating at 38.2% and, his support from white voters plummeting – white men, in particular – it’s expected.
This legislation will not only restore our competitive edge in the 21st century, but it will restore the sacred bonds of trust between America and its citizens,” Trump said as he appeared with the bill’s authors, Republican Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue.
This from FiveThirtyEight:
- Many critics of the merit-based approach
see it as un-American. On Wednesday, CNN reporter Jim Acosta got into a heated argument with White House adviser Stephen Miller over whether the proposal violated the Statue of Liberty’s promise that the U.S. welcomes “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” But the idea also has its defenders, including someeconomists, who argue that it makes sense to give preference to immigrants who have skills that employers need and who are less likely to rely on government benefits. They note that other countries, including Canada and Australia, already use merit-based systems. (Other economists argue the U.S. needs both high- and low-skilled immigrants, and note that less-educated immigrants have high rates of entrepreneurship.)
There is far less disagreement among economists about the RAISE Act’s other big proposal, which halves the number of green cards issued each year. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s analytics, called the move a “grave mistake” in an interview with The Washington Post. Zandi is hardly alone: In April, nearly 1,500 economists from across the political spectrum signed a letter to Trump and congressional leaders extolling the economic benefits of immigration. They noted immigrants’ high rate of entrepreneurship, a key issue at a time when Americans are starting fewer companies, and emphasized the importance of bringing new workers to the U.S. to fill the hole left by retiring baby boomers.
Research also shows that immigration has a positive impact on the wages of native-born workers. This has been highlighted by the think tank, the Center for American Progress:
Research shows that immigration will positively affect U.S. workers’ wages and employment. How can that be? While overly simplistic views of economic theory might suggest that wages will decline in the short run as the supply of labor increases, this is not the case with immigration […]
[…] immigrants generally do not have a direct negative impact on the earnings of native-born workers, as native-born workers and immigrant workers generally complement each other rather than compete for the same job. Native-born workers and immigrants tend to have different skill sets and therefore seek different types of jobs. Thus, immigrants are not increasing the labor market competition for native-born workers and therefore do not negatively affect American workers’ earnings.
To be sure, there are some instances when immigrants and the native born are similarly skilled and substitutable for similar jobs. Recent research has found, however, that firms respond to an increase in the supply of labor by expanding their business. Thus, an increased supply of labor as a result of immigration is easily absorbed into the labor market as a result of increased demand for labor, without lowering the wages of native-born workers.
Second, research finds small but positive impacts on native-born workers because of the indirect effects that immigrants have on the labor market and economy. As economists Michael Clemens and Robert Lynch explain in The New Republic, “In some areas of the economy, lesser skilled immigrants have kept entire industries alive.” This not only helps native-born workers within the industries but also native-born workers whose jobs are associated or closely connected to those industries.
As with Haitians who must uproot families, some are children born in the United States only familiar with this country. They replaced a dwindling working class in Fort Lauderdale, and yes, are paying taxes. It is a fallacy that 60,000 Haitians have been detriment to US immigration, but perhaps to the millions of anti-immigration supporters who would never clean a public toilet.