The immigration policy the U.S. needs
This editorial appeared on Bloomberg View:
Occasionally, U.S. President Donald Trump tweets something worthwhile. Such was the case earlier this month when he praised the skills-based immigration systems of Canada and Australia.
Canada, which in 1967 became the first nation to use a points system, grades applicants to its Federal Skilled Worker Program on six factors: work experience, education, language ability, age, arranged employment, and a more subjective measure of “adaptability.” To be eligible for a permanent resident visa, an applicant must accumulate enough points in the various categories to “pass.”
The result is that about 60 per cent of permanent residents admitted to Canada are admitted for economic reasons. (Others are admitted mostly on the basis of family ties or refugee status.) In other words: Canada values skills, and selects its immigrants accordingly.
U.S. immigration law currently values family ties over skills. A points system similar to Canada’s would reverse that preference. Republican Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia have introduced legislation to accomplish such a switch. But the bill would also drastically reduce immigration overall. It would end the 50,000 annual “diversity visas,” a lottery system that admits immigrants from countries with historically low rates of immigration, and it would cap green cards for refugees at 50,000. Its sponsors’ aim is to reduce immigration by 50 per cent in 10 years — to about 540,000 annually.
Immigration politics remains highly contentious. Trump was elected in part on an anti-immigrant wave.
A points system similar to those used in Canada and Australia could rectify that mistake. But if it proves to be a ruse for clamping down on immigration indiscriminately, the U.S. will fall behind in the global competition for talent. You can’t score points without the right players.
Recalibrating U.S. immigration policy to prioritize high skills makes sense. Cutting overall immigration levels in half, however, is too high a price to pay.