No announcement yet.

Article: Five Reasons Why Tom Cotton’s Bill That President Trump Supports is Bad Policy By Bernard Wolfsdorf, Esq.


  • Article: Five Reasons Why Tom Cotton’s Bill That President Trump Supports is Bad Policy By Bernard Wolfsdorf, Esq.

    Five Reasons Why Tom Cotton’s Bill That President Trump Supports is Bad Policy


    Last week, President Trump endorsed the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act (the “RAISE Act”), first introduced by Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) in February 2017. The RAISE Act seeks to curtail current legal immigration levels by 50% over the next decade, without a reasonable correlation to family reunification or the economic needs of the country, by establishing a point-based system that favors individuals between the ages of 26-30 with high English level proficiency, high education levels, and a job offer with a high salary. This would mark a major, fundamental shift in U.S. immigration law, which for at least the past century has promoted immigration policies that (a) reunite families; (b) admit workers with specific skills and to fill positions in occupations experiencing labor shortages; (c) provide a refuge for people facing political, racial, or religious persecution; and (d) ensure diversity.

    While President Trump’s endorsement has failed to gain the RAISE Act any legislative traction, and while it is unlikely to pass the current U.S. Congress, the bill’s so-called “merit-based” system is, in reality, merely subtext behind an restrictionist immigration agenda which seeks to keep those who are different (in race, religion, etc.) from entering the United States. Wolfsdorf Rosenthal’s piece on the hidden meaning behind a “merit-based” immigration system, An Era of Uncertainty: Potential US Immigration Policy Changes under the Trump Administration has been published by Who’s Who Legal.

    Here are 5 reasons why the RAISE Act is bad policy:

    1. The RAISE Act Darkens America’s Beacon of Light and Hope . The RAISE Act would allow only 50,000 refugees into the U.S. each year and eliminates the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990, as amended, defines “refugee” as those persons outside his or her country who, because of a “well-founded fear or persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion,” is unable or unwilling to return to that country. See INA § 101(a)(42)(A). Prohibiting the entry of individuals who are unable to pursue life, liberty, and happiness for reasons beyond one’s control or because of one’s differing viewpoints than a foreign government is patently un-American. Anti-refugee sentiment, combined with President Trump’s proposed travel ban against nationals from the Middle East or other countries with predominantly-Muslim populations, is a simple, but effective, recruitment tool for terrorist organizations hoping to recruit those who feel they have no other better options or any outside support. The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program provides relief to those from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the U.S., and although it could be retooled to support immigration programs that better support U.S. workers, diversity in America remains one of our country’s greatest strengths for attracting talent abroad The RAISE Act is thus another example of President Trump supporting an unpopular proposal that pits “us” against “them” and which doesn’t live up to our country’s New Colossus history of accepting immigrants.
    2. The RAISE Act Cripples the Ability of U.S. Businesses to Hire or Retain Skilled Workers . Because of its “point-based” structure, the proposed bill provides no way for a U.S. company to know whether the foreign national it wishes to provide a job to will be qualified by the U.S. government to enter the country. This is particularly true for foreign nationals waiting their turns in the current backlogs for legal U.S. immigration benefits and for foreign students wishing to create their own American dream, as the RAISE Act includes no transition plan for those currently affected by backlogs. For all their zealous support on “freedom of contract” and laissez-faire economic policies that destroy our environment and weaken the middle class, the Republicans supporting the RAISE Act seem intent on picking the “winners” and “losers” of employment of foreign nationals in the U.S., as opposed to letting U.S. businesses determine which employees are best suited for their respective companies.
    3. The RAISE Act Wrongfully Eliminates Family-Based Visa Categories . The RAISE Act reduces the worldwide family-based quota to merely 88,000 (or less) and would prevent U.S. citizens from sponsoring green card applications of their grown adult family members, though it does create a renewable, temporary visa for parents of U.S. citizens who can also demonstrate health insurance coverage and adequate financial support for their stay. However, for green card holders, the RAISE Act eliminatespreferences for extended family and for grown adult family members. Moreover, pending applications in eliminated categories are voided except for those for people scheduled to receive a green card within a year. The U.S.’ goal for family unification would take backseat (or be shoved in the trunk) to its goal for skilled workers to benefit the U.S. economy. However, recent studies by the Migration Policy Institute and the Pew Research Center demonstrate that immigrants are not an economic burden to the U.S. and do not lower wages for U.S. workers. Notably, for all their concern about U.S. worker’s wages and well-being, the Republican senators supporting the RAISE Act have failed to cite to (or attempt to fix) other potential factors that contributed to depressed wages for U.S. middle and lower classes, such as globalization, automation, deregulation, corporatism, increased healthcare costs, declining union density, and changes in labor market policies and business practices. Only the increase of low-skilled immigrants are to blame for the current economic decline of Americans who fail to invest in their own future or care enough to get an advanced education necessary to participate in today’s workforce. Interestingly, the RAISE Act seems to negate the traditionally conservative tenets of a hard work ethic, respectability, and self-sufficiency.
    4. The RAISE Act Would Reduce Foreign Investment in the U.S. The RAISE Act’s point system would grant only 6 points to a foreign national who invests and maintains $1.35M in a new U.S. commercial enterprise and 12 points if that investment level is increased to $1.8M. Yet, because of the mechanics of the “point-based” system, such an investment would not provide reasonable certainty that green status would necessarily result. The U.S.’ current investor visa program brought in over $19 billion from October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2016 and has created thousands of jobs for U.S. workers. Although the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program is certainly in need of reforms, the RAISE Act does nothing to encourage, and actually discourages, foreign investment in the U.S.
    5. The RAISE Act Fails to Allocate Sufficient Resources for Reasonable Immigration Processing . Part of ensuring integrity for the U.S. immigration system involves administrative fixes to the processing of U.S. immigration benefits and adjudications by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), the U.S. Department of State (“DOS”), and by immigration judges. Standard processing times and immigration backlogs have dramatically increased in the past decade, inhibiting the ability of U.S. companies and foreign nationals to plan for their businesses and families, respectively. For example, because of the limited number of visas and “per-country” limitations, a married son or daughter from Mexico of a U.S. citizen currently needs to wait over 20 years to enter the U.S. through legal family-based immigration. The RAISE Act does little, if nothing, to reduce these absurd wait times of millions in a fair and reasonable manner.

    This post originally appeared on Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP. Copyright © 2017 Wolfsdorf Connect - All Rights Reserved.

    About The Author

    Bernard Wolfsdorf Bernard Wolfsdorf is the managing partner of the top-rated law firm, Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP (, and the past national president of the 14,000-member American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Established in 1986, Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP is known worldwide for providing exceptional quality legal services. With 19 lawyers and offices in Los Angles and New York, the firm was recently listed as a top-tier immigration practice by Chambers & Partners with several of the firm's attorneys listed in the 2015 International Who's Who Legal. Mr. Wolfsdorf specializes in EB-5 investment immigration in addition to the full range of global immigration matters.

    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

    • ImmigrationLawBlogs
      Editing a comment
      From the very beginning of Trump's campaign, he has made it crystal clear that non-white, non-European immigrants were not going to be welcome in America in any visa category. The RAISE Act should be a surprise to no one; it was inevitable ever since Trump gave his Arizona immigration address almost a year ago, on August 31, 2016, and reaffirmed his white supremacist immigration views recently in his Warsaw address.

      Attacking the RAISE Act for being shortsighted, ineffective, not accomplishing a valid purpose, unnecessary, etc., is beside the point. The purpose of this law is obviously to cut back or eliminate visa categories (such as family or refugee visas) mainly used by non-white immigrants. It should more properly be called the RACE Act, and it should be opposed on that basis.

      Roger Algase
      Attorney at Law
    Posting comments is disabled.





There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles


  • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
    The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process by H. Ronald Klasko At Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP, we represent businesses, individuals, and organizations across the world with various aspects of employment-based immigration. The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa Program is one program through which we help wealthy foreign nationals with no employment sponsorship or family in the United States gain permanent residence status. In the infographic below, we highlight the steps of the EB-5 program and the investment requirements associated with it, so individuals and companies alike can understand the program before coming to Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP for assistance. This post originally appeared on Reprinted with permission. About The Author H. Ronald Klasko is recognized by businesses, universities, hospitals, scholars, investors and other lawyers as one of the country's leading immigration lawyers. A founding member of Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP and its Managing Partner, he has practiced immigration law exclusively over three decades. Under his leadership, the firm was chosen with five other firms by Chambers Global in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 as the top U.S. business, hospital and university immigration law firm. Ron, himself, was named as the world's most respected corporate immigration lawyer (The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers 2007 and 2008) and one of the country's top immigration lawyers by clients and other immigration lawyers who said he is revered for coming up with unique arguments that can save a clients (Chambers Global). A former National President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Ron served as General...
    08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
  • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
    Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
    08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
  • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
    Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
    08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
  • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

    Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


    On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

    USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

    08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
  • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
    Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
    08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
  • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
    USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
    08-14-2018, 10:51 AM