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.
Over the past decade, the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela has deteriorated the standard of living in the country. Former president Hugo Chavez and current president Nicolas Maduro have been unable to stimulate a stagnated economy in order to ameliorate living conditions in Venezuela. The United States has imposed sanctions on the country, arguing that they are necessary to restore democracy and human rights. Most recently, on November 1st, 2018, President Trump signed an executive order establishing sanctions on Venezuelan gold. In this article, we provide an analysis of why the US government chose to target gold and present potential alternate solutions to the government’s current approach.
At a press conference in 2016, President Obama remarked, “The United States and ASEAN [the Association of Southeast Asian Nations] have forged a strategic partnership guided by key principles, including that ASEAN will remain central to peace, prosperity and progress in the Asia Pacific.” However, the U.S.-ASEAN partnership faces several emergent challenges, including disruptions in trade policy, adjustments in major economies, US withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Chinese territorial expansion, and a lack of organizational unity and infrastructure. This article will provide a history of the U.S. relationship with the ASEAN, an overview of the various problems faced by the partnership, and recommended policy responses to ensure continuing United States and Southeast Asian economic development and prosperity.
During the last year, the United States enacted a series of anti-trade measures to reset the U.S. and China relationship. The Chinese have reciprocated with anti-trade measures of their own in an effort to punish the United States. For the United States, the goal of the resulting trade war is to reset China’s trading relationship with the world. However, in the interim, U.S. industries, especially the agriculture industry, are suffering from the loss of their largest export market. How does trade work? What is the history of the U.S. and China trading relationship? What is each nation’s strategy and ultimately, what are the consequences of the trade war?
U.S. Women Owned Businesses Involvement in International Trade as a Critical Step for the Future of the U.S. EconomyOn August 28th, Ivanka Trump, chief advisor to President Donald Trump, announced the administration’s plans to advance women’s economic empowerment in the “Western hemisphere” after months of explaining the importance of women’s involvement in the workforce and increasing the number of female-business owners. This initiative is in accordance with a global trend of international organizations like the United Nations and World Economic Forum advocating for women’s economic empowerment in both developed and developing countries. A specific focus within this movement is increasing women-owned business involvement in international trade because this presence is good for national growth, societies and ultimately the global economy. These advancements also occur in the United States where women-owned businesses that export provide higher wagers, are 1.2 times more productive, and hire more employees than their male counterparts; meaning that increasing the number of women owned business that export and the number of those exports could at the very least increase middle-class wages and lower unemployment. Yet while the United States maintains its position as one of the best countries for women entrepreneurs, along with Canada and Australia, women-owned businesses still face barriers against entering the export industry.
Physician-assisted death (PAD) entered the national conversation in the 1990s with the highly publicized case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan pathologist, who chose to assist his patient, in the final stages of ALS, in dying. Dr. Kevorkian was ultimately tried and convicted of second-degree murder and delivery of a controlled substance. In 2014, the discussion surrounding PAD emerged again when Brittany Maynard, a 29-year-old with terminal brain cancer, elected to move to Oregon in order to end her life under the state’s Death with Dignity Act (DWDA). Despite almost 30 years passing since PAD entered the national dialogue, it remains a largely unresolved issue in the United States.
As Reuters reports, the volume of global mergers and acquisitions during the first quarter of 2018 reached a record-setting $1.2 trillion in value. It’s clear, then, that firms are combining and consolidating market power in ways never seen before. What’s less clear is the proper way to regulate those mergers with an eye towards the public’s interest in competitive markets that facilitate a new entrant’s ability to innovate and grow. Enter the field of antitrust, the political and legal framework employed by regulators to block firms from accruing too much economic power in a particular industry.
This past July, the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy, or ARPA-E, launched a $5 million funding opportunity in an effort to research algorithms that can develop the modern grid. ARPA-E is a government agency sponsored by the Department of Energy aimed towards researching energy innovation. The funding opportunity, which sought to tackle power grid optimization and energy efficiency, was released in order to incentivize innovative research and obtain ideas from teams from various sectors.
On April 9, 2018, President Nicolas Maduro declared the Petrocoin as the official tender of Venezuela. Government owned companies were given 120 days to comply with the order, and citizens will be able to pay for taxes, fees, and public services using the new cryptocurrency. In addition, the President declared that special economic zones will be created in which people will be able to use the coin for everyday purposes.
Over the past year, the #MeToo movement has sparked an international conversation about the prevalence of sexual assault. It has become clear that sexual violence is an epidemic that no woman is immune to - from Hollywood celebrities and domestic workers to Olympic gymnasts and farmworkers. With the spotlight finally on this pervasive issue, it is important to examine the role of public policy in addressing sexual assault claims and providing reparations to victims.
This article explains some of the challenges facing manufacturing companies and attempts to show how an increase in apprenticeships may be a viable solution.