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.
Picture this: you’re tired of the spam in your inbox, so you download a new app for your browser that blocks it. While downloading, the Terms of Agreement pop up, and you click ‘Agree’ – because why wouldn’t you? Unbeknownst to you, while you are now enjoying your spam-free email, the Slice Technologies app is analyzing your emails for purchase receipts and selling this anonymized data to hedge funds. Is that an invasion of privacy? Not quite, as you agreed to the terms. But why would hedge funds, and other investment advisers, want this information? Well, with this kind of alternative data, investment firms can make much more accurate predictions about a company’s sales revenue and its health. This new world of alternative data poses incredible alpha-creating potential for investment advisers, as well as new legal concerns for the courts and regulators.
American law enforcement agencies are advocating that technology companies be forced to compromise the encryption used in their products, to facilitate ongoing investigations. Encryption is the computational tool used to protect every American’s digital communications and data from eavesdropping and tampering, and it plays a vital role in our economy and national security. A misguided attempt to weaken encryption would only damage our national interests, both with respect to economic wellbeing and business security. Hackers and foreign nations will target the introduced weaknesses, domestic firms’ ability to build and export security innovations will decrease, and the American competitive advantage in the technology sector will be lessened.
The legacy of the Silk Road is acting as inspiration for what President Xi Jinping calls the “project of the century.” Yi dai yi lu, or “One Belt One Road” (OBOR), is Xi’s signature foreign policy enterprise: a commitment of more than $1 trillion for Chinese development banks to invest in a sweeping Eurasian and African infrastructure initiative. OBOR operates both as a result of recent economic trends in China and as a milestone in Chinese foreign policy. The plan creates an outlet for Chinese products which are outgrowing domestic demand, but also has significant geopolitical potential. This article will examine OBOR and its consequences on Chinese partnerships across Eurasia and Africa and also how the results of this project relate to US foreign policy.
Where Do You Draw the Line? Exploring Antitrust Enforcement and the Regulation of Big Business in Modern AmericaIn towns and cities across America, mom and pop shops seem to be closing down at a rampant rate. It is no secret that as America moves further into the 21st century, consolidation is placing more power in the hands of fewer companies. With billion dollar companies becoming the norm and giants like Target and Walmart seemingly on every corner, it becomes hard to understand the dynamics of today’s complex economy. There is a strong argument against big businesses; it is bad for the average consumer and allowing companies to grow only allows them more ability to exercise their advantage and prey on consumers. On the other side, there is compelling theory that with healthy competition, big business expedites innovation and optimizes production in ways small companies cannot, which results in lower prices and a more efficient consumer experience. Within this environment, the regulation of big business is known as antitrust law and as the economy grows more complex, so does the enforcement of these laws in America.
Land-use regulation usually comes in the form of permits or codes, and is intended “to ensure [that] private use of land resources [is] aligned with policy standards.” In other words, it is a way for the government to control how certain privately-owned areas are used. There are clear benefits associated with these permits and codes – for instance, they may help ensure the preservation of a particularly historic area of a town. That said, land regulation also triggers some economic collateral concerns that are often overlooked, such as lost business profits and a widening income gap.
The 2000 presidential election posed countless issues, including butterfly ballots, partially punched cards, four to six million lost votes, and outraged citizens across the political spectrum. These issues led California Institute of Technology president David Baltimore and Massachusetts Institute of Technology president Charles Vest to approach the election technology failure more scientifically. With a team of computer scientists, mechanical engineers, and political scientists, they reimagined—and reengineered—the election process. Although Baltimore and Vest pioneered advancements in the election process, the reliability of voting infrastructure today still remains questionable. As we approach the upcoming election cycle this Fall, policy and technology experts must come together to rectify a failing system.
Despite a modest decline in private vehicle ownership in the last four years, many Americans still employ cars as their primary mode of transportation. Comparisons among census trends in the past few decades indicate that private vehicles amassed popularity among American households following more extensive car-centric city planning beginning in the early 1960s.
At the end of the last century, the digital revolution ushered in technological advancements that most consumers would not want to live without. Information and communication technology (ICT), such as computers, cell phones and the Internet, have proliferated worldwide entering our homes, offices and classrooms.  However, while the expansion of this technology has been impressive, it has not been even. At both the national and global levels, access to ICT is still far from universal and its disparity reflects and exacerbates the inequalities that exist offline. According to the International Telecommunications Union, the Internet user gender gap was as high as 31% in some developing countries and 12% globally in 2016.  As ICT becomes increasingly important, those left behind face growing socioeconomic barriers. This is what is known as the digital divide. People unfamiliar or unable to access ICTs are disadvantaged when trying to enter higher paid jobs, join solidarity networks, utilize educational information and accrue cultural capital.
Kaylee Heffelfinger of Arizona and Shahriar Jabbari of California had sued Wells Fargo for opening seven unauthorized bank accounts in their names, but their lawsuits were dismissed due to analogous mandatory arbitration clauses. Their cases were part of a larger scandal in which Wells Fargo opened at least 3.5 million unauthorized accounts on behalf of their customers but then astonishingly held those customers to the mandatory arbitration clauses they had signed for their legitimate accounts. Given the harm that mandatory arbitration may cause consumers, it is critical for policymakers to consider the implications of mandatory arbitration.
In June of 2016, former Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter removed one of the final barriers to military service by announcing new rules that would allow transgender individuals to openly serve in the military. Prior to this, transgender people would have been discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for their gender under Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 6130.03: Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services. Just one year later, in July 2017, President Donald Trump tweeted that the U.S. “will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military” because the military “must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgenders in the military would entail”.