Nolan writes:
. . . .
Compromise.
A compromise is possible. It does not have to be a choice between the current chain migration system and a purely merit-based system. The two systems can be merged with the use of a point system.
Visas currently allocated to extended family members can be transitioned to a merit-based point system that provides extra points for family ties to a citizen or LPR. The merit-based aspect of the point system would eliminate the main objection to chain migration, which is that it allocates visas to extended family members who do not have skills or experience that America needs.
Trump’s framework also would terminate the Diversity Visa Program. Those visas could be transitioned to the new point system too.
This would be a small price to pay for a legalization program that would provide lawful status for 1.8 million Dreamers.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.“
**********************
Go on over to The Hill at the link to read Nolan’s complete article.
I disagree with Nolan’s statement that extended family members don’t bring needed skills. As David J. Bier of the Cato Institute recently pointed out in the Washington Post, that argument is one of a number of “Myths” about so-called chain migration.
Bier writes:
“MYTH NO. 5
Chain immigrants lack skills to succeed.
In making his case for the president’s proposals last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said, “What good does it do to bring in somebody who is illiterate in their own country, has no skills and is going to struggle in our country and not be successful?” This description distorts the picture of immigrants who settle in the United States.Nearly half of adults in the family-sponsored and diversity visa categories had a college degree, compared with less than a third of U.S. natives. America would lose nearly a quarter-million college graduates every year without the family-sponsored and diversity programs.
Even among the 11 percent who have little formal education, there is no evidence that they aren’t successful. By virtually every measure, the least-skilled immigrants prosper in America. Immigrant men without high school degrees are almost as likely as U.S.-born men with college degrees to look for a job and keep one.
Family-sponsored immigrants are the most upwardly mobile American workers. Whether high-skilled or not, chain or not, immigrants succeed in and contribute to this country.”
I highly recommend Bier’s article
All of my many years of first-hand observation of family immigration at every level supports Bier’s analysis.
Indeed, even if I were to assume that the majority of extended family were so-called “unskilled” (meaning largely that they have skills elite restrictionists don’t respect) that would hardly mean that they aren’t greatly benefitting the US. In many ways, immigrants who perform important so-called “unskilled jobs” essential to our economy but which most Americans neither will nor can do well, are just as important to societal success as more doctors, professors, computer geeks, and baseball players. Fact is, immigrants of all types from all types of countries consistently benefit the US.
That being said, why not try something along the lines that Nolan suggests by taking the Diversity visas and establishing a “pilot program” that combines skills and family ties in a numerical matrix? Then, track the results to see how they compare with existing employment-based and family-based immigration.
PWS
02-21-17
Paul says, “I disagree with Nolan’s statement that extended family members don’t bring needed skills.”
Actually, that’s not what I said. I said that it is the main objection to chain migration, and I didn’t indicate whether I agreed.
I don’t know whether they have needed skills or not, but I do know that it doesn’t matter. The point of the objection is that they aren’t given visas because they bring needed skills. They are given visas because they are in the extended family of a citizen or LPR.
Blending chain migration with a merit-based point system would eliminate that objection because it would limit chain migration to relatives who have needed skills.
That might sound harsh, but in politics, you take what you can get and hope to get more in the future. In this case, you would be getting a lot. It would put 1.8 million Dreamers on a path to citizenship. I don’t know why people who want to help the Dreamers aren’t excited about that offer. Like it or not, Trump could turn out to be the only real friend the Dreamers ever have.
Who knows when they will have another chance to become citizens? DREAM Acts have been offered for more than a decade (I think, my memory isn’t great), and it doesn’t seem to matter which party controls congress and the White House. The Dems had a strong majority in the House and a filibuster-busting majority in the Senate for two years during the Obama administration. They could have passed a DREAM Act then and chose not to do it. They passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote.
And as a practical matter, reducing chain migration with a merged point system wouldn’t make much difference. The waiting list for extended family members who are the beneficiaries of approved visa petitions has four million names on it. The next Democratic majority would have plenty of time to pass a bill reverting back to the original chain migration system before the changes brought by the merged system made a significant difference. That is, if the next Democratic majority doesn’t ignore the issue the way the last one ignored the plight of the Dreamers.