U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton’s bill to change the country’s immigration priorities contains a feature that Randy Zook loves and Patrick Gallaher hates:
It would dramatically reduce the number of immigrants admitted because they are related to a U.S. citizen or legal resident without regard for the contribution they can make when they get here.
But while it would slash the immigration categories known collectively as “family reunification,” Cotton’s bill would not do the main thing that Zook, CEO of the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce/Associated Industries of Arkansas, says businesses are crying out for: increase the number of skilled workers available to fill gaps in the workforce.
“We’re still laboring in the vineyard, trying to get some rationality up there,” Zook said, employing language from the 20th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. “You know, Tom Cotton has taken a sort of 90-degree angle on us, but I think he’s teachable.”
Meanwhile, Gallaher, executive director of Catholic Charities of Arkansas, points to a different chapter in the same gospel — Matthew 25, in which Jesus called on his disciples to take in strangers — to decry any attempt to make the United States less welcoming.
The lesson Zook wants Cotton to absorb is that Arkansas needs more, not fewer, immigrant workers.
“I know there’s plenty of room to improve that bill and to better inform them about the magnitude of the need out here for competent, skilled, trainable labor that we simply don’t have an adequate supply of in many communities,” he said.
That would be a fundamental change in philosophy from the bill that Cotton introduced in February with Sen. David Purdue, R-Ga. Nicknamed RAISE — Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment — the proposal would dramatically reduce the number of permanent legal immigrants immediately and permanently.
Instead of roughly 1 million immigrants per year in a country of more than 320 million, RAISE would reduce the number to less than 650,000 in its first year and barely 500,000 by its 10th year.
It would do that by limiting family reunification visas to the spouses and minor children of legal residents — no more preference for aging parents, married children or siblings — and by placing a hard cap on refugees at a time when those applications are on the rise. It would also eliminate a controversial lottery that has sought to inject more diversity of national origin through sheer luck of the draw.
Since introducing their bill, Cotton and Purdue have met with President Donald Trump, whose fiery campaign rhetoric has given way to more moderated discussions of a merit-based system similar to that of Canada, which prioritizes highly educated immigrants. Cotton has in various interviews expressed an openness to that, and Zook is still concerned about any system that doesn’t recognize the need for more non-degreed skilled labor.
Catholic Charities of Arkansas operates two law offices recognized by the Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals. Catholics, Gallaher said, recognize that sovereign states have “a right to reasonably control their borders” but also recognize “a human right” to migrate … in order to live a fruitful life.”
The church believes all humans are equal, he said, and values reunification of families, which are “the basis on which the whole of society is built.”
Economic Rationale
Sen. Purdue’s press release announcing the legislation was subtitled “RAISE Act restores historic immigration levels to meet needs of economy.” It quoted Cotton as saying the changes “would promote higher wages on which all working Americans can build a future...”
But while Zook applauds the bill’s reform of the family reunification preference, he does not believe the proposal actually meets the needs of the economy.
“Our position … is we are too over-focused on family reunification and degreed workers to the near exclusion of anyone with a high school education and skills like plumber,” Zook said. “We are rapidly running out of skilled trade people.”
While Catholic Charities does not involve itself in employer-sponsored immigration, Gallaher said Cotton’s argument is undercut by the state’s record-low unemployment rate (3.7 percent in February) even as the minimum wage increased to $8.50 on Jan. 1. In northwest Arkansas, which has the largest concentration of the state’s approximately 150,000 immigrants, the unemployment rate is lower still (2.8 percent).
“At least for Arkansas — I can’t speak for everywhere — his major premise is wrong. And if his premise is wrong, then his goal of reducing immigration by 50 percent is wrong,” he said.
Zook scoffed at the idea that immigrants are depressing wages or keeping Arkansans from finding work.
“I could name at least one [employer] in each county that is constrained by the need for labor,” Zook said. Even the higher minimum wage won’t attract workers, he said. “Those days are over. We’re talking $15 an hour, even $20 an hour.”
(See Arkansas Industry Leaders Say Temporary Workers in Short Supply)
Another thing Zook and Gallaher agree on: Cotton is a serious legislator taking on an issue that needs attention.
“I give Tom credit. He’s at least thinking about it and talking about it,” Zook said. “And he’s right on this point: that the focus on family reunification to the exclusion of all else is dangerous.”
Said Gallaher: “The one thing I can say about Mr. Cotton is he wants to reform our immigration system, and it badly needs to be reformed. … I also trust Mr. Cotton to have researched and rationalized his position. He’s not just reading talking points that have been given to him by some other organization.”
RAISE Provisions
In addition to limiting the family reunification preference, the RAISE Act also proposes limiting to 50,000 per year the number of refugees who are offered permanent residency. In announcing the bill, Cotton and Purdue described that as “in line with a 13-year average,” but the average for the past three years has been almost 100,000.
RAISE would eliminate entirely a relatively small category of immigrants: the 50,000 annual winners of the diversity visa lottery. Ostensibly designed to bring in immigrants from underrepresented areas, Cotton and Purdue described the lottery as “outdated” and “plagued with fraud” and said it “advanced no economic or humanitarian interest.”