The Raise Act: Arguments For Immigration In The United States

Immigration in the United States has ignited debate for as long as it has existed. The RAISE Act is the product of a history that put a greater value on highly skilled immigrants who benefit American economy than traditional American ideals of acceptance and hospitality. Whether prioritizing economic gain or cultural development, the RAISE Act demonstrates how opposing sides develop arguments founded solely on what they deem deserving of primacy. The United States boasts of being a tolerant magnet for immigration; however, immigration in the United States has a history of being controlled by those in power to limit and prioritize who has the right of becoming a citizen. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was one of the first pieces of legislation

Against the resulting increase of immigrants from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, proponents of the RAISE Act support the merit-based program as it puts importance on an individual’s skills as well as limiting the overall number of immigrants. According to Reihan Salam of the National Review, the limiting of family-based immigration that the RAISE Act provides would drastically reduce “chain migration,” in which one immigrant sponsors a relative and so on, creating an increasing population that supports high immigration levels. Supporting his point, Salam cites Princeton sociologist Marta Tienda, who found that from 300,000 Asian immigrants arriving between 1996 and 2000, 1.2 million relatives had been sponsored. In addition to the worry of a decreasingly prevalent, mono-cultural society, proponents of the RAISE Act simply do not see an economic benefit from the majority of immigrants. As Daniel Horowitz, senior editor of the Conservative Review, cites from Pew, 18 percent of immigrants in 1970 lived below the poverty line, compared to 28 percent currently. Horowitz also mentions that percentages of nonimmigrants under the poverty line has remained between 13 and 15 percent. In the National Review, Salam cites economist at the Harvard Kennedy

In an interview with Boston University School of Law, Sara Sherman-Stokes, clinical instructor and associate director of the Immigrants’ Rights & Human Trafficking Program, expressed concern for refugees under the RAISE Act, which would only welcome 50,000 annually. In context, 84,995 refugees were admitted into the United States in 2016. Sherman-Stokes comments that a limit on refugee admission reduces the flexibility needed in the current global situation. Raul A. Reyes of NBC News writes that the RAISE Act favors white and English-speaking immigrants and makes it much harder for Latin Americans, Asians, and Africans to come legally. He also remarks on how a system only based on merit excludes immigrants without opportunity to achieve skills in their native country. The system would reject immigrants with the desire to work hard but do not have certain qualifications. To support his point, Reyes cites the entrepreneurs of Google and Yahoo, who both came from underprivileged immigrant families. If the RAISE Act were to pass, not only would the United States’ ideology of providing support be lost, but so too would potential talent. Issie Lapowsky, senior writer for WIRED, describes this in a way that relates to the tech industry. While the