Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half
By PETER BAKER
AUG. 2, 2017 - The New York Times
WASHINGTON
— President Trump embraced a proposal on Wednesday to slash legal immigration to
the United States in half within a decade by sharply curtailing the ability of
American citizens and legal residents to bring family members into the
country.
The
plan would enact the most far-reaching changes to the system of legal
immigration in decades and represents the presidentfs latest effort to stem the
flow of newcomers to the United States. Since taking office, he has barred many
visitors from select Muslim-majority countries, limited the influx of refugees,
increased immigration arrests and pressed to build a wall along the southern
border.
In asking Congress to curb legal immigration, Mr. Trump
intensified a debate about national identity, economic growth, worker fairness
and American values that animated his campaign last year. Critics said the
proposal would undercut the fundamental vision of the United States as a haven
for the poor and huddled masses, while the president and his allies said the
country had taken in too many low-skilled immigrants for too long to the
detriment of American workers.
gThis legislation will not only restore our competitive
edge in the 21st century, but it will restore the sacred bonds of trust between
America and its citizens,h Mr. Trump said at a White House event alongside two
Republican senators sponsoring the bill. gThis legislation demonstrates our
compassion for struggling American families who deserve an immigration system
that puts their needs first and that puts America first.h
In throwing his weight behind a
bill, Mr. Trump added one more long-odds priority to a legislative agenda
already packed with them in the wake of the defeat of legislation to repeal and
replace President Barack Obamafs health care program. The president has already
vowed to overhaul the tax code and rebuild the nationfs roads, airports and
other infrastructure.
But by endorsing legal immigration
cuts, a move he has long supported, Mr. Trump returned to a theme that has
defined his short political career and excites his conservative base at a time
when his poll numbers continue to sink. Just 33 percent of Americans approved of
his performance in the latest Quinnipiac University survey, the lowest rating of
his presidency, and down from 40 percent a month ago.
Democrats and some Republicans quickly criticized the
move. gInstead of catching criminals, Trump wants to tear apart communities and
punish immigrant families that are making valuable contributions to our
economy,h said Tom Perez, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
gThatfs not what America stands for.h
The bill, sponsored by Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and
David Perdue of Georgia, would institute a merit-based system to determine who
is admitted to the country and granted legal residency green cards, favoring
applicants based on skills, education and language ability rather than relations
with people already here. The proposal revives an idea included in broader
immigration legislation supported by President George W. Bush that died in
2007.
More than one million people are granted legal residency
each year, and the proposal would reduce that by 41 percent in its first year
and 50 percent by its 10th year, according to projections cited by its sponsors.
The reductions would come largely from those brought in through family
connections. The number of immigrants granted legal residency on the basis of
job skills, about 140,000, would remain roughly the same.
Under the current system, most legal immigrants are
admitted to the United States based on family ties. American citizens can
sponsor spouses, parents and minor children for an unrestricted number of visas,
while siblings and adult children are given preferences for a limited number of
visas available to them. Legal permanent residents holding green cards can also
sponsor spouses and children.
In 2014, 64 percent of immigrants admitted with legal
residency were immediate relatives of American citizens or sponsored by family
members. Just 15 percent entered through employment-based preferences, according
to the Migration Policy Institute, an independent research organization. But
that does not mean that those who came in on family ties were necessarily low
skilled or uneducated.
The legislation would award points based on education,
ability to speak English, high-paying job offers, age, record of achievement and
entrepreneurial initiative. But while it would still allow spouses and minor
children of Americans and legal residents to come in, it would eliminate
preferences for other relatives, like siblings and adult children. The bill
would create a renewable temporary visa for older-adult parents who come for
caretaking purposes.
The legislation would limit refugees offered permanent
residency to 50,000 a year and eliminate a diversity visa lottery that the
sponsors said does not promote diversity. The senators said their bill was meant
to emulate systems in Canada and Australia.
The projections cited by the
sponsors said legal immigration would decrease to 637,960 after a year and to
539,958 after a decade.
gOur current system does not work,h Mr. Perdue said. gIt
keeps America from being competitive and it does not meet the needs of our
economy today.h
Mr. Cotton said low-skilled immigrants pushed down wages
for those who worked with their hands. gFor some people, they may think that
thatfs a symbol of Americafs virtue and generosity,h he said. gI think itfs a
symbol that wefre not committed to working-class Americans, and we need to
change that.h
But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina,
noted that agriculture and tourism were his statefs top two industries. gIf this
proposal were to become law, it would be devastating to our statefs economy,
which relies on this immigrant work force,h he said. gHotels, restaurants, golf
courses and farmers,h he added, gwill tell you this proposal to cut legal
immigration in half would put their business in peril.h
Cutting legal immigration would make it harder for Mr.
Trump to reach the stronger economic growth that he has promised. Bringing in
more workers, especially during a time of low unemployment, increases the size
of an economy. Critics said the plan would result in labor shortages, especially
in lower-wage jobs that many Americans do not want.
The National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group, said
the country was already facing a work force gap of 7.5 million jobs by 2020.
gCutting legal immigration for the sake of cutting immigration would cause
irreparable harm to the American worker and their family,h said Ali Noorani, the
groupfs executive director.
Surveys show most Americans believe legal immigration
benefits the country. In a Gallup
poll in January, 41 percent of Americans were satisfied with the overall
level of immigration, 11 percentage points higher than the year before and the
highest since the question was first asked in 2001. Still, 53 percent of
Americans remained dissatisfied.
The plan endorsed by Mr. Trump generated a fiery exchange
at the White House briefing when Stephen Miller, the presidentfs policy adviser
and a longtime advocate of immigration limits, defended the proposal. Pressed
for statistics to back up claims that immigration was costing Americans jobs, he
cited several studies that have been debated by experts.
gBut letfs also use common sense
here, folks,h Mr. Miller said. gAt the end of the day, why do special interests
want to bring in more low-skill workers?h
He rejected the argument that immigration policy should
also be based on compassion. gMaybe itfs time we had compassion for American
workers,h he said.
When a reporter read him some of the words from the Statue
of Liberty — gGive me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to
breathe freeh — Mr. Miller dismissed them. gThe poem that youfre referring to
was added later,h he said. gItfs not actually part of the original Statue of
Liberty.h
He noted that in 1970, the United States allowed in only a
third as many legal immigrants as it now does: gWas that violating or not
violating the Statue of Liberty law of the land?h