Talk:RAISE Act

Discussion of points-based immigration

This was a points-based immigration bill, proposed by Cotton and Purdue. It seems appropriate to me that we include this information in the header of the article, since otherwise it's not clear what the purpose of this bill is. Haxonek (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks as though this has been brought up before in 2017 [1] by Quark1005, so I'm going to reinstate the edit Haxonek (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

No, we cannot use a White House statement and a letter to the editor from a Senator for this content. Please also don't re-insert material that has been challenged on WP:RS or other grounds. I have added a brief mention of the proposed points scheme to the lead, and expanded the treatment of this aspect in the body (cited to a better source). Neutrality^talk 04:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

We are discussing a letter from the senator who wrote the bill (which was posted to the WSJ), a post by the white house, and S. 1720. I am happy to use another source if you'd like, however I don't know what would be more official, especially taking into consideration the reliable source page. Additionally this change has been requested in the past by user Quark1005, and it seems important to me to mention that the purpose of this bill was to implement a points-based immigration system, seeing as that's the intended effect of the bill. Haxonek (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Bill number?

Does this thing even have a bill number yet? I couldn't find one. --MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1720 S.1720? Not sure how numbering works for bills Ethanbas ^(talk) 02:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's it, thanks. Senate bills are numbered S.somethingorother. House bills are number H.R.-somethingorother. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Some sources to potentially draw upon

• Caitlin Ostroff, Ciara Bri'd Frisbie and Alice Kantor, Fact-checking the GOP legal immigration bill, CNN (August 4, 2017).
• Binyamin Appelbaum, Fewer Immigrants Mean More Jobs? Not So, Economists Say, New York Times (August 3, 2017).
• Jordain Carney, Immigration battle brewing in the GOP, The Hill (August 3, 2017).
• Robert Farley, Trump Overstates Impact of Immigration Bill, FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center (August 3, 2017).

--Neutrality^talk 15:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV in "Provisions and analysis" section

The user with the ironic screen name "Neutrality" has been removing content which would provide some balance to the analysis section - on the basis that the article is an opinion piece, but the WonkBlog article cited is also opinion/commentary.

In any event, the Atlantic article - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/ - is a solid piece from a very credible publication, and it offers a potent rebuttal to the claim that there's a "consensus" among economists that large-scale immigration is beneficial to everyone. That's simply not the case...Cheap labor does have some economic benefits - particularly if one is a business owner who can hire people or less money or a consumer with a good income who can buy goods and services for cheaper. But if one is a low-skilled worker then having to compete with more low-skilled workers isn't beneficial.

So Wikipedia shouldn't be asserting that there's broad consensus that immigration is beneficial to everyone. We need to be giving a balanced overview of different views on the topic. -2003:CA:83C7:3400:A5EE:D240:104D:7780 (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

No, the Peter Beinart op-ed doesn't mention the bill at all. See WP:SYNTH. Not only that, but the article does not discuss any of the particulars of the proposals of the bill. It's entirely irrelevant. The Washington Post Wonkblog is not an opinion/commentary piece. It's marked as analysis and quotes the views of others (economists), not the author. Neutrality^talk 22:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

National Academies Press article

@Ecopedia: Does the National Academies Press article mention the RAISE Act? (I haven't read it yet because I don't have an account.) If not, then it probably doesn't belong in this article (maybe it could go in the George Borjas article, or some general article about immigrants and economics). Sources that directly discuss the RAISE Act and Borjas's work are generally preferred for this article, rather than just links to his work. ^Falling_Gravity 16:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this and have removed. This material should not be restored without consensus - and I think that this is clearly WP:SYNTH (the NAP report was published in 2016 and pre-dates the introduction of this bill). Moreover, (1) Borjas's views are already mentioned in this article, and (2) the presentation of the report is misleading and distorted - the report expressly found, for example, that "the long-term impact of immigration on the wages and employment of native-born workers overall is very small." Neutrality^talk 20:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that, even beyond the SYNTH issue, Ecopedia's summary of the 2016 report was highly misleading and cherry-picked. Claims that the NAS report provide support for Trump's immigration agenda are flatly wrong. The study's authors, Francine D. Blau and Gretchen Donehower, very specifically rebuffed this notion in March 2017. Neutrality^talk 14:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The RAISE Act creates a point-based system based largely on educational attainment. This is designed to soften the competition for wages and jobs on less-educated Americans under the existing system. The extent of the loss sustained by less educated Americans has been quantified in the 2016 NAS Report on the economic impact of immigration at $500 billion. In response to the question above, the RAISE Act was not mentioned in the NAS Report, as the Report preceded the RAISE Act. Concerns over the impact of immigration on less educated Americans traces into Barbara Jordan's Commission on Immigration over two decades ago. It's fair to observe economists are not all in agreement, it seems unfair to exclude one side of the debate, particularly for the underprivileged, less educated American often in a minority household. Ecopedia has offered proposed wording for this addition. How would others propose the concept be fairly addressed? Ecopedia (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't "exclude one side of the debate." The article as it stands explicitly mention Borjas, and indicates how his view is the minority position within economics. That's what we have to do. See WP:WEIGHT (we "fairly represent all significant viewpoints ... in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.") and WP:FALSEBALANCE ("Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view ... needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."). Neutrality^talk 18:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The substitution of a point system for the existing family reunification system is at the heart of the RAISE Act. It seems like a fair representation would have to include the point system and its history (the Jordan Commission). Why would this not be referenced? Ecopedia (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Jordan Commission and 2016 NAS Report on the economic effects of immigration

The RAISE Act introduces a point-based system for immigrants largely based on educational attainment. This aspect of the proposed law should not be suppressed. Under the current immigration system, two-thirds is through extended family relationships (far beyond the nuclear family of spouse and minor children). The immigrants under this system have lower educational skills and compete with less educated Americans, thereby costing them $500 billion annually (essentially the national defense budget). This is precisely the impact of immigration addressed by the Jordan Commission. In the words of Civil Rights icon Barbara Jordan at the conference of United We Stand America, October 19, 1995: "The commission finds no national interest in continuing to import lesser-skilled and unskilled workers to compete in the most vulnerable parts of our labor force. Many American workers do not have adequate job prospects. We should make their task easier to find employment, not harder." Ecopedia's efforts to address the interests of Americans all too often left behind seem to have struck a nerve. How might we work together in addressing these concerns? Ecopedia (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Only sources that discuss the 2016 NAS Report in the context of the RAISE Act should go in the article. You can propose adding such sources here on the talk page. Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAPBOX. ^Falling_Gravity 21:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The following article connects the 2016 NAS Report with the RAISE Act: https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/early-errors-raise-act-reporting Ecopedia respectfully submits the Act's effort to improve job prospects and wages for underprivileged Americans is relevant. Other thoughts on how to include this are appreciated.Ecopedia (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

That "article" is a blog post from Numbers USA, an anti-immigration advocacy group, complaining about media coverage. That's not usable as a source. Neutrality^talk 18:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

NumbersUSA addresses the level of immigration. The history of the country reveals immigration levels fluctuate wildly (high in the late 19th century, reduced to a trickle in 1924, then high again under the 1965 bill). Why would it be deemed "anti-immigration" for a group to essentially advocate against the roller coaster? What should the level of immigration be? What criteria should be applied (the law of supply and demand in a labor pool, carrying capacity)? This conversation does not seem to be anti-immigration. On an anti-pro spectrum, it seems more "pro-immigration" to avoid slamming the door as in 1924. We might never know each other, but it's quite possible for us to have a great deal more in common than we suspect. Ecopedia (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Polling

I've removed new text inserted citing to a National Review article. The text claims that the poll shows that "most Americans support the majority of the provisions of the Act." This is poorly done for a few reasons:

• First, even if we were to cite the poll, we wouldn't do so by citing to the National Review.
• Second, the summary of the poll, a Politico/Morning Consult poll, is not good. Here's the summary from the pollster. It mentions that:
  • "about a quarter of voters (24 percent) said they did not know or had no opinion, which could be a large enough chunk of voters that could tip the scales against the bill’s supporters if voters were offered more information."
  • The poll asked about six separate provisions of the bill. Three of them had over 50% support. Three of them had under 50% support, including "reducing legal immigration by half"
• Third, this is just one poll, and other polls show substantially different results. This poll, by YouGov/The Economist, taken following the introduction of the bill, shows that "only 37% of the total adult population" supports cutting immigration by half.

If we want to include text on public opinion, we need to do it right, with an accurate summary, not with a slapdash cite to the National Review and cherry-picked results from 1 poll. Neutrality^talk 15:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't include any polls from outlets with well-established readerships with an identifiable political stance. I guarantee there's a poll by a more left-leaning outlet out there that shows the exact opposite. Otherwise, we're taking the opinions of a bunch of reliably conservative (or liberal) readers, and attempting to portray those opinions as being those of the population in general. That's a "surveys 101" level mistake. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Points system

The introduction and provisions sections should give greater prominence to the points system. That is a significant change to American immigration, independent from any changes to the total numbers of immigrants. Quark1005 (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I second this, this bill was advertised as a points-based immigration system like the EU and Canada, and it seems important to recognize that fact.Haxonek (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)