The RAISE Act and Immigration Law

Sarah Sherman-Stokes breaks down the changes the new legislation would make to current immigration law.

Introduced in August 2017, the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act seeks to dramatically reduce the number of noncitizens immigrating to the United States lawfully. The legislation, sponsored by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Purdue (R-GA) and endorsed by the White House, would ensure that, going forward, US Immigration policy will favor the admission of immigrants who are English speakers and high earners.

Boston University School of Law spoke with Sarah Sherman-Stokes, clinical instructor and associate director of the Immigrants’ Rights & Human Trafficking Program, to understand the changes the bill would make to US immigration law and its potential economic and humanitarian consequences.

Q How would the RAISE Act change current US immigration policy?

A The RAISE Act would be a dramatic departure from current US immigration policy in a number of ways, effectively slashing by 50 percent the number of immigrants lawfully entering the United States.

First, the RAISE act would significantly alter the ability of noncitizens to obtain lawful immigration status through family connections. Annually, about two thirds of green cards are awarded to noncitizens who have US Citizen or lawful permanent resident family members. Family reunification has been seen by many to be in the United States’ national interest, as well as the right thing to do on a moral and humanitarian level. The RAISE Act would present a striking change to family-based immigration by, for example, denying the parents of US Citizens the ability to immigrate as lawful permanent residents.

The RAISE Act would also institute a points system for all employment-based green cards. The points system would take into consideration a number of previously less relevant factors, including educational qualifications, age, English-language ability, future salary, investments, and achievements. This would be a dramatic departure from the way employment-based immigration has previously operated. Instead of a “demand” system, driven by employers petitioning for workers based on their needs and inability to satisfy those needs based on the US labor pool, the RAISE Act institutes a “supply” system.

Next, the RAISE Act eliminates the Diversity Visa Program. The Diversity Visa Program is designed to bring immigrants to the US from countries that have typically had low levels of migration. This annual lottery system sets aside 50,000 green cards for underrepresented immigrants and since the program began in 1994, more than one million immigrants and their families have benefitted. Notably, this program is a mainstay for African and Caribbean migration, in particular, and eliminating it will mean a significant decrease in lawful migration from those regions.

How would it affect refugee resettlement in the US?

The RAISE Act would significantly lower the number of refugees admitted to the United States. The US welcomed 84,995 refugees in fiscal year 2016. The RAISE Act would put a cap on refugee admissions—allowing just 50,000 refugees annually. At a time when violence and persecution have displaced more families than any time since World War II, the United States should be doing more, and not less, to respond to the global refugee crisis. Moreover, ongoing humanitarian crises and civil wars across the globe demand flexibility. Setting a cap on refugee admissions makes such flexibility impossible.

What are the potential consequences of the act?

The RAISE Act sets admission ceilings that are inflexible and unchangeable. Such a policy is deeply myopic—it fails to consider that the economic and social needs of the country, and of the world, are dynamic and ever-changing. Setting hard rules about admissions prevents the United States from adapting to the changing needs of our community, and of the world.

What are the next steps for this legislation?

The RAISE Act is not expected to fare well in the Senate, where analysts anticipate it will be difficult to garner the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster. Trump met with the bill’s sponsors to discuss the legislation before it was introduced and critics have suggested that the bill is simply an offering to President Trump’s base, and not expected to pass.

Related News

• David Rossman on Commonwealth v. Warren, Racial Profiling, and Police Interrogations
• Q&A with Ahmed Ghappour, Associate Professor of Law and Data Science Faculty Fellow
• Karen Pita Loor Testifies before Mass. Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security
• BU Law Students Assist Travelers Affected by President’s Executive Orders