Economic Implications of the RAISE Act
October 13, 2017
By Adam Chernew
More specifically, the legislation is being pitched as a way to boost pay for American workers by protecting them from competition from immigrants, and includes two key provisions to do so.  First, in deciding whom to admit to the U.S., the bill would give far more weight to prospective immigrants’ skills rather than their ties to family members already in the country. Moreover, this bill would also cut in half the number of green cards issued annually from 1 million to 500,000 over course of the next decade.  Although these provisions do overlap to a degree, it is worth considering their economic impacts separately.
Currently, the American immigration system is primarily family-based.  The U.S. issues about 1 million green cards annually, and roughly sixty-five percent of them are allocated to individuals who have a family relationship with a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.  As previously eluded to, however, the RAISE Act would change this by instead emphasizing applicants’ skills over their family ties. Specifically, the RAISE Act would eliminate visa preferences for extended family and grown adult family members of U.S. residents, while simultaneously establishing a point system for granting visas that gives prospective immigrants credit for education, English-language ability, and “entrepreneurial initiative” amongst other factors. 
Such a shift in immigrant prioritization has been criticized on both moral and economic grounds. As a moral issue, former Deputy Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, described this merit-based approach as un-American, and CNN’s Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta suggested that the provision violates the Statute of Liberty’s promise that the U.S. will welcome “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”   Economically, critics have suggested that a merit-based system prioritizing high-skilled workers could harm industries that rely on low-skilled immigrant labor (such as ranching) by raising their labor costs, which would in turn lead to higher prices for consumers.  That being said, a merit-based immigration approach has been shown to yield some economic benefits. For instance, evidence from Canada (which utilizes, although not exclusively, a point system) shows that immigrants arriving through the points system have higher education, employment rates and earnings than immigrants admitted through other channels and are therefore likely to make higher net contributions to the government (though there is no direct evidence linking immigration selection criteria and government contributions).  Likewise, Serge Shikher of the U.S. International Trade Commission has found that countries with a strong flow of highly educated labor (often facilitated through a merit-based system) tend to have more productive economies.  Thus, while some may consider prioritizing skills over family ties immoral, the economic impact of such a policy shift would likely be mixed. As is the case with many economic policy decisions, there are important tradeoffs to consider.
When it comes to the economic impact of the RAISE Act’s other main provision, however, there is far more consensus. Almost all economists agree that halving the number of green cards issued annually over the course of the next decade is a bad idea. For example, arguing that “the only way to meaningfully increase U.S. economic growth on a sustained basis anytime soon is to increase immigration”, Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi called the bill’s effort to cut legal immigration a grave mistake.  More to the point, in April, over 1,400 economists from across the political spectrum sent a letter to President Trump and congressional leaders extolling the economic benefits of legal immigration and urging them not to cut it.  In defending their argument, they cited immigrants’ high rates of entrepreneurship.  which is critical at a time when Americans are starting fewer companies,  and highlighted the need to bring new workers to the U.S. to fill the employment holes left by retiring baby boomers.  In fact, the irony of cutting immigration in half over the course of the next decade is that it would likely prevent the U.S. from achieving 3 percent economic growth annually, a promise that President Trump has made repeatedly.  Hence, while moving toward a merit-based immigration system may provide certain economic advantages to the U.S., the same cannot be said for halving the number of immigrants admitted to the U.S. on an annual basis. Put simply, enacting this provision would be a major step backward for the American economy.
Student Blog Disclaimer
The views expressed on the Student Blog are the author’s opinions and don’t necessarily represent the Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative’s strategies, recommendations, or opinions.
 Nakamura, David. “Trump, GOP Senators Introduce Bill to Slash Legal Immigration Levels.” Washington Post (Washington, DC), August 3, 2017. Accessed August 28, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/08/02/trump-gop-senators-to-introduce-bill-to-slash-legal-immigration-levels/?utm_term=.b5fc3c40452a.
 Rabbitt, Caroline. “Cotton and Perdue Introduce the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act.” News release. August 2, 2017. Accessed August 28, 2017. https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=765.
 White House. “Remarks by President Trump, Senator Tom Cotton, and Senator David Perdue on the RAISE Act and Green Card Reform.” whitehouse.gov. Last modified August 2, 2017. Accessed August 28, 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/02/remarks-president-trump-senator-tom-cotton-and-senator-david-perdue.
 Casselman, Ben, and Michelle Cheng. “Trump’s Plan to Cut Legal Immigration Could Hurt the Economy.” fivethirtyeight.com. Last modified August 4, 2017. Accessed August 28, 2017. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-plan-to-cut-legal-immigration-could-hurt-the-economy/.
 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents: 2015. By Ryan Baugh and Katherine Witsman. March 2017. Accessed August 28, 2017. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Lawful_Permanent_Residents_2015.pdf
 Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act (RAISE Act), S. Doc. No. 115, 1st Sess., at 1 (2017). Accessed August 28, 2017. https://www.cotton.senate.gov/files/documents/170802_New_RAISE_Act_Section_by_Section.pdf.
 “Blinken: Merit-based System Is Un-American.” cnn.com. Last modified August 2, 2017. Accessed August 29, 2017. http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/08/02/tony-blinken-trump-immigration-system-un-american-ath.cnn.
 Ryan, Josiah. “CNN’s Acosta, White House Aide Clash Over Immigration at Briefing.” Money.cnn.com. August 2, 2017. Accessed August 29, 2017. http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/02/media/jim-acosta-stephen-miller-immigration/index.html.
 Alvarez, Priscilla. “Is a ‘Merit-Based’ Immigration System a Good Idea?” theatlantic.com. Last modified March 11, 2017. Accessed August 30, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/trump-cotton-perdue-merit-based-immigration-system/518985/.
 Hunt, Jennifer. “Analysis: Would the U.S. Benefit from a Merit-Based Immigration System.” pbs.org. Last modified August 3, 2017. Accessed August 30, 2017. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/analysis-u-s-benefit-merit-based-immigration-system/.
 Smith, Noah. “Canada Should Be Trump’s Model for Immigration.” www.bloomberg.com. Last modified November 17, 2016. Accessed August 30, 2017. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-17/canada-should-be-trump-s-model-for-immigration-reform.
 Long, Heather. “It’s a ‘Grave Mistake’ for Trump to Cut Legal Immigration in Half.” The Washington Post (Washington, DC), August 2, 2017. Accessed August 30, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/02/its-a-grave-mistake-for-trump-to-cut-legal-immigration-in-half/?utm_term=.a7624f5bbc1f.
 New American Economy Action Fund. “An Open Letter from 1,470 Economists on Immigration.” newamericaneconomy.org. Last modified April 12, 2017. Accessed August 30, 2017. http://www.newamericaneconomy.org/feature/an-open-letter-from-1470-economists-on-immigration/.
 Kerr, Sari Pekkala, and William R. Kerr. “Immigrants Play a Disproportionate Role in American Entrepreneurship.” Harvard Business Review, October 3, 2016. Accessed August 30, 2017. https://hbr.org/2016/10/immigrants-play-a-disproportionate-role-in-american-entrepreneurship.
 Casselman, Ben. “Immigrants Are Keeping Young - and the Economy Growing.” fivethirtyeight.com. Last modified October 31, 2016. Accessed August 30, 2017. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/immigrants-are-keeping-america-young-and-the-economy-growing/.
 Stewart, Emily. “Trump’s Immigration Cuts Could Foil His Promises for Economic Growth.” thestreet.com. Last modified August 6, 2017. Accessed August 30, 2017. https://www.thestreet.com/story/14254137/1/trump-s-immigration-cuts-could-damage-prospects-for-economic-growth.html.
“The Slow Death of American Entrepreneurship.” fivethirtyeight.com. Last modified May 15, 2014. Accessed August 30, 2017. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-slow-death-of-american-entrepreneurship/.
Turner Broadcasting System. “Blinken: Merit-based System Is Un-American.” cnn.com. Last modified August 2, 2017. Accessed August 29, 2017. http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/08/02/tony-blinken-trump-immigration-system-un-american-ath.cnn.
The debate over climate change and what (if anything) should be done about it has plagued the politics of the 21st century. These debates manifest themselves along partisan lines and different economic beliefs. For example, the Paris Climate Agreement has not proven to have lasting effects due to the absence of actionable agreements regarding contribution in funding and guidelines between the participating countries, mostly based on monetary concerns. Another international agreement touching on the subject in a distinct way has been the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). The agreement, while rooted as a free trade agenda, acknowledged and laid out guidelines for environmental governance in the public as well as the private sector to break the cycle of government inaction. Unlike its predecessors, the language encouraged governments to develop “voluntary mechanisms” that “are truthful…and take into account scientific and technical information… [and] if applicable…are based on relevant international standards”, however, these notions have not been implemented. Both of these agreements are examples of the relative failure of the current political order in addressing environmental governance.
Community success is predicated on the support of education, housing, health, and safety. In other words, to make a community successful, one must look for solutions and programs that create cooperation across a variety of stakeholders. Complex problems originating from multiple sectors can most effectively be solved by using cross-sector collaborations. Ultimately, these cross-sector collaborations and collective impact initiatives can yield better results than isolated impact approaches. The term “Collective Impact” was first coined by John Kania and Mark Kramer in an article published in 2011 in the Stanford Social Innovation Review. Collective impact is defined as “the commitment of a group of important actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem.” The five conditions for successful collective impact initiatives are: a common agenda, shared measurement systems, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and backbone support organizations.
Scientists and researchers agree: ocean levels are rising as ice from the polar caps melts. Rising sea levels will affect major cities within the United States in the next half-century, many of which are already struggling with infrastructure problems. Rising tides are expected to put parts of South Florida, New Orleans, and many other metropolitan areas underwater, especially San Francisco. As tides already brush up against roads and freeways in the region, Bay Area infrastructure is prone to flooding, with two major arteries experiencing seasonal flooding: California State Route 37 (SR 37) in the North Bay between Vallejo and Sonoma County, and Interstate 80 in the East Bay north of Berkeley. Furthermore, San Francisco International Airport, surrounding areas in San Mateo County and Treasure Island are at risk.
The United States is on the cusp of a technological revolution. Innovation within our borders is accelerating at a break-neck pace, and companies are about to roll out a myriad of new tech over the next decade. Research and development in artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, drones, and fully-automated assembly lines have the potential to boost the productivity of the United States, improve the quality of living for countless Americans, and fundamentally change the way the global economy functions. However, this economic change will also fundamentally restructure our labor markets.
Postsecondary Institution Accreditation: The Tension Between Consumer Protection and Higher Education InnovationAccreditation provides a vital role in allocating federal student aid to postsecondary institutions of higher education (IHEs). As gatekeepers of the Higher Education Act’s (HEA) Title IV funds, accrediting agencies are expected to be “reliable authorities on the quality of education being offered.” For this reason, the United States Department of Education’s (ED) use of accreditation facilitates its decision-making on which IHEs receive funds. However, with more than $14 trillion in outstanding federal student loan debt, the accreditation process has come under scrutiny.
Resilience. It’s the new buzzword going around the U.S. electricity sector, and it’s defined by an electrical grid’s ability to recover from major disturbances (read: cyberattacks and natural disasters). President Trump and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry have accordingly introduced plans to support struggling coal and nuclear plants because of their ability to store backup fuel on-site.
In what was supposed to be one of the largest acquisitions of all time, Broadcom tried to purchase rival tech company, Qualcomm in a $117 billion transaction. The deal would have consolidated the already-small chip making industry and helped Singapore-based Broadcom to challenge Intel more easily. However, this merger fell through when the Trump administration stepped in and blocked the deal. Interestingly, instead of stopping the transaction under the auspices of anti-trust issues, the White House claimed that it posed a grave danger to “national security.”  
2009 Pittsburgh G20 Summit: A Look Back at its Impact on Derivatives Markets and Challenges that RemainIn the wake of the financial crisis, G20 Leaders gathered in Pittsburgh in 2009 with two chief goals: stabilize the global economy and begin the work of preventing future crises. Because attendees knew that improving derivatives regulation was essential to accomplishing those goals, they provided a blueprint for reform at the summit’s close focused on four key aspects of derivatives markets: trading, clearing, reporting, and capital requirements. That blueprint influenced a range of post-crisis laws that made global markets more stable and transparent. But there is still work to do. Regulators now must focus on fine-tuning reforms, particularly by (i) remaining watchful for new, emerging risks, and (ii) preserving systems of cooperation and recognition so that global regulators can work together to safeguard interconnected financial markets.
Through 5,000 community based organizations, the Meals on Wheels America program delivers over 1 million meals every day, reaching over 2 million individuals each year. Through the work of 2 million staff members and volunteers, seniors who are homebound are able to receive meals they may not have had access to previously. While donations are accepted, Meals on Wheels does not require its recipients to pay for meals and therefore requires funding to maintain its services. In addition to meals, staff and volunteers help provide social interaction, conduct safety checks, and “keep(ing) Seniors home, where they want to be.”
The collapse of Rana Plaza, killing more than 1,100 garment workers in Dakha, Bangladesh in April 2013, brought attention to the dire working conditions of the Bangladeshi people. Bangladesh’s textile industry is the 2nd largest in the world, with annual export earnings upwards of $28 billion in 2016 yet in contrast, the workers have the lowest wages of the garment manufacturing countries. An estimated 31% of its population lives below the national poverty line, which is defined as $2 per day. A report by Oxfam showed that “a top fashion industry CEO earned in four days the lifetime pay of a factory worker.” Ultimately, the fashion industry relies on cheap labor, quick turnaround time, and export oriented industrialization and those brands which exploit the working conditions for these reasons in Bangladesh include, but are not limited to: Hugo Boss, GAP, Zara, and H&M. This article will demonstrate how the responsibility to ensure improved working conditions in countries such as Bangladesh is at the intersection between private, public, and consumer based initiatives.