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.
Nuclear energy has the potential to assist nations in tackling climate change and sustain a rapidly growing world population. In the first part of this series on nuclear energy, I analyzed why nuclear energy is superior to other energy sources in achieving this end but also why current market forces prevent its growth. However, even if US legislators decided to pass legislation that aggressively expanded the country’s nuclear infrastructure, there are three primary non-market challenges with current U.S. policy, or lack thereof: a hostile public, the absence of a centralized nuclear waste disposal site, and concerns with proliferation and the imperilment of U.S. national security objectives. In order to responsibly expand nuclear energy capacities and prevent proliferation to hostile states, policy-makers have an obligation to address these issues. Not doing so may bear worse consequences than wantonly enlarging the United States’ atomic sector.
In 2015, Seattle legislators signed a bill to gradually increase the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour over several years. Businesses with fewer than 500 employees will still have until January of 2024 to deal with the full ramifications of the act. However, businesses that do not provide medical benefits and employ over 500 people were forced to pay their workers $15 dollars an hour starting this past January . Since then, two major studies have been published on the effects of the act, one concluding that it has had a positive effect on economic activity and employment and the other stating that it has made the labor market far too rigid.
Today private prisons house about 126,000 federal and state inmates . Orders issued under the Obama Administration to phase out the use of private prisons are now being reversed under the Trump Administration, which has caused some debates over the efficacy of private prisons to resurface. Chiefly, this reversal has sparked controversy over the economic benefits of private prisons in America, as the most avid dissidents highlight problems with the economic argument for private prisons and even moderate objectors point to inconclusive data as a poor indicator of their advantages.
Trust Busting in Silicon Valley: Analyzing the Role of Antitrust Regulation in the Technology IndustryFrom checking the weather to reading the news, from interacting on social media to shopping for gifts, it is evident that technology plays an integral role in our daily lives. We can attribute the products that we use every day with just a few prominent technology companies. “Tech giants” or even the “Frightful Five,” the collective names given to Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and Google (and by extension, its parent company Alphabet) underscore the idea that these technology companies significantly influence both our daily routines and the political and economic changes in our nation at large .
Healthcare spending accounts for just under one-fifth of the US economy, amounting to an enormous $3.4 trillion in 2016 . Politicians from both sides of the aisle have tried their hand at passing cost containment measures to slow its growth, which has consistently outpaced GDP growth rates. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) attempted to cut costs by reshaping the way providers are paid to manage care. As a result, it began to recognize and reward a new hybrid structuring of providers: Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). As ACOs become more popular under new payment schemes, it is essential to track their ability to reduce costs and improve quality. The Trump administration’s policy changes stand to shape not only providers’ care coordination, but also the trajectory of the healthcare industry.
Since Hurricane Maria struck Puerto Rico, the island’s leaders have been asking the federal government for more emergency aid and long-term recovery funds. Resident Commissioner for Puerto Rico Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon requested, “Congress [approve] an aid package that is commensurate with the level of devastation,” while Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo of Guam said she will, “Seek a firm commitment that the House provide fair and robust emergency assistance to U.S. territories devastated by natural disasters in any bills considered for the remainder of the Congress.”  The federal government must determine how much assistance is required to adequately respond to a natural disaster of this scale and how to balance the need for short-term relief and long-term recovery.
Sugar sweetened beverage taxes, commonly referred to as soda taxes, have been on the rise in American municipal governments as a potential policy solution to both a public health crisis and a revenue shortage . However, in cities like Philadelphia where these sugary beverage taxes have been implemented, they have become a target for the scrutiny of residents and economists alike. Governments that have implemented soda taxes commonly cite how the tax revenue and the tax itself could help tackle obesity, but this claim is still subject to debate.
Since 1976, private citizens have been barred from introducing private lawsuits against foreign nations under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). This law has been the basis for United States’ domestic legal engagement with other countries for decades, and has undergone significant revisions since its inception. Actions taken by the legislative branch over the past few decades have drastically changed the original FSIA and introduced new challenges regarding implementation and potential ramifications against the United States in legal systems abroad. This article explores how a recent amendment to the FSIA known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terror Act (JASTA), as well as prior revisions, represent a significant reduction in the sovereign immunity laid out in FSIA, as well as a public policy and diplomatic challenge for the United States moving forward.
First proposed in 2009, India’s Aadhaar biometric ID system represents a complete overhaul of India’s approach to identification. The Aadhaar ID links your fingerprint and iris to everything from tax filings to bank accounts. Despite criticism relating to privacy concerns, proponents argue that Aadhaar has the potential to propel the Indian economy towards business transparency and fraud reduction.
Over the span of recent decades, the federal legalization of marijuana has been a popular topic of discussion within the political arena. One aspect less frequently introduced is the financial impact legalization has within the banking sector. At the moment, most cannabis companies are unable to take out federal loans or establish any form of credit, since marijuana is federally illegal and therefore federally regulated banks are unable to work directly with marijuana businesses. A few states have legalized the use and distribution, of cannabis, both recreationally and medicinally, but this legal standing is insufficient for distributors to access services provided by national banks. All of this has led to volatility within the marijuana business structure and a business model built in violation of banking standards.