On Wednesday, President Donald Trump endorsed a bill, introduced by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AK) and David Perdue (R-GA) in February, which would halve the number of legal immigrants coming to the U.S.

The RAISE Act would cap the number of green cards the U.S. issues at 50,000 over the next 10 years. Currently, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services awards about one million green cards each year; about six million individuals and employers apply for a green card each year.

Green cards grant legal immigrants the right to permanently reside and work in the country, instead of having to apply and constantly renew work visas.

Inspired by the Canadian and Australian immigration policies, the proposed legislation would establish a competitive “merit-based system,” through which applicants would be awarded points based on a slew of factors. Some of the factors would include an applicant’s financial stability, ability to pay for healthcare, earning prospects, and, most controversially, English language skills.

The RAISE ACT “puts great downward pressure on people who work with their hands and work on their feet,” Cotton said. “Now, for some people, they may think that that’s a symbol of America’s virtue and generosity. I think it’s a symbol that we’re not committed to working-class Americans. And we need to change that.”

The bill also removes the diversity visa program and “chain migration,” the current practice of prioritizing family unity in the immigration process.

I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers & taxpayers. Watch: https://t.co/lv3ScSKnF6 #RAISEAct pic.twitter.com/zCFK5OfYnB

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 2, 2017

“American First” 

This announcement comes on the heels of the Senate’s failure to repeal and replace Obamacare. Many equate this push for legal immigration reform to the administration trying to turn the page on healthcare and secure its first legislative win.

Trump campaigned on reforming immigration, legal and illegal, but several of his initiatives have either run into road-blocks or devolved into large-scale media disasters. Trump’s promised wall along the Mexican border remains unbuilt, and the attempted Muslim ban was stopped in court a number of times earlier this year.

However, Trump’s “America first” message remains at the forefront of his policies and his endorsement of this bill further highlights this.

“The RAISE Act prevents new migrants and new immigrants from collecting welfare, and protects U.S. workers from being displaced,” Trump said. “And that’s a very big thing. They’re not going to come in and just immediately go and collect welfare. That doesn’t happen under the RAISE Act. They can’t do that.”

Uphill Battle in Congress 

The bill is very unlikely to pass Congress, as it would need unified Republican support as well as some Democratic votes. Some Republicans have already said they would not support the bill. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released a statement on Wednesday, saying that he agrees with the ideas expressed in the bill, but he would not vote in favor of the legislation.

“South Carolina’s number one industry is agriculture and tourism is number two,” Graham said. “If this proposal were to become law, it would be devastating to our state’s economy, which relies on this immigrant workforce.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also cast doubt on his colleagues’ bill. “I think you have to consider that we do want high-tech people, but we also need low-skilled people who will do work that Americans won’t do,” he said. “I wouldn’t do it. Even in my misspent youth, I wouldn’t do it.”

Strong Reactions 

While many Trump advocates support the policy proposal, the bill is drawing significant criticism from economists, citizens, and immigrants.

“Dramatically reducing overall immigration levels won’t raise the standard of living for Americans,” said Randy Johnson, senior vice president for labor, immigration, and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “In fact, it will likely accomplish the opposite, making it harder for businesses, communities, and our overall economy to grow, prosper, and create jobs for American workers.”

Some see the RAISE Act as focusing too much on making sure Americans in low-wage jobs don’t face competition from immigrants, instead of investing in those same Americans so that they may obtain higher paying jobs.

It's interesting that outside of immigration policy, nobody ever proposes giving strict priority to the interests of high school dropouts.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) August 3, 2017

Others object to the limits the bill would place on bringing in grandparents or extended family members to the U.S. Under the bill, people like First Lady Melania Trump, a non-native English speaker, would have a tough time getting permanent residency.

“What the president is proposing here does not sound like it’s in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration,” CNN’s Jim Acosta said during a White House press conference. “The Statue of Liberty says, ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.’ It doesn’t say anything about speaking English or being a computer programmer.”

In his response to Acosta’s question, Stephen Miller, Trump’s policy adviser, said: “The poem that you’re referring to was added later, [and] is not actually part of the original Statue of Liberty.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Backs Bill to Slash Legal Immigration, Introduce “Merit-Based” System appeared first on Law Street.

Today, NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre stayed true to the White House’s line that protesters speaking out against the administration are paid. In fact, he claimed that protesters are being paid $1,500 a week. And given that the future of journalism seems to be less-than-rosy right now, I have to ask: where do I sign up?

I mean, $1,500 a week is a lot of money. That’s about $78,000 a year. That’s about on par with what the average accountant, architect, epidemiologist, psychologist, or nuclear technician makes–all professions that I’m fairly certain take quite a bit more schooling than being a protester.

LaPierre, also said that the protesters are specifically and deliberately inciting violence, and compared them to terrorists. He claimed that, “the left’s message is absolutely clear. They want revenge, you’ve got to be punished. They say you’re what’s wrong with America and now you’ve got to be purged.” He went on to say: that the “extreme left” “literally hate everything America stands for” and “are willing to use violence against us.” But Mr. LaPierre, you can’t have it both ways. Are the protesters apathetic, and that’s why they need to be paid? Or do they hate America with such a fiery passion–in which case you would think that most of them would just protest for free?

Also, who is supposedly paying out this $1,500 a week to protesters? We’ll probably never have an exact estimate on how many people attended Women’s marches throughout the U.S. on January 21, but let’s use FiveThirtyEight’s safe and conservative estimate of 3.2 million. And while the peddlers of this “paid protester” myth haven’t been clear on what percentage of the protesters are supposedly paid, let’s say that just one-third–a million individuals–from the Women’s March got their weekly $1,500 takeaway. That right there is $1.5 billion dollars. That’s quite a lot of money apparently secretly floating around.

While that’s a very literal interpretation of LaPierre’s claims, the ridiculousness of a vast “paid protesters” conspiracy to the tune of over a billion dollars isn’t that remarkably far off from what some have claimed since Trump took office. That ridiculousness is always worth being called out–and Mr. LaPierre, I can assure you that no one is paying me $1,500 a week just to say that.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wayne LaPierre Says Paid Protesters Make $1,500 a Week: Where Can I Sign Up? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Protests After Off-Duty Cop Fires Gun During Altercation with Teens

On Tuesday, an off-duty LAPD officer seems to have lost it in an altercation with some kids who walked on his lawn in Anaheim, California. A video that went viral on social media yesterday shows a group of young teenagers outside a house and the cop pulling the limbs of a 13-year-old boy. When the boy’s friends start pulling him in the other direction, the cop fired his gun. No one was injured, but photos surfaced of the boy with bruises on his neck.

JUST IN: Hundreds protest in Anaheim after an off-duty LAPD cop grabbed a teenager and fired his weapon during a scuffle on his lawn. pic.twitter.com/ry6W56fkh1

— Fusion (@Fusion) February 23, 2017

The boy, Christian Dorscht, allegedly stood up for a 13-year-old girl after the officer started shouting profanities at her for walking on the lawn. According to Dorscht’s father, the boy said he was going to “sue” the cop, which the cop allegedly misheard as “shoot,” and decided to arrest him. The incident ended with Dorscht being charged with criminal threats and battery while the cop walked free. Hundreds took to the streets of Anaheim to protest and the ACLU of Southern California said it is deeply disturbed by the video and demanded a full explanation. The LAPD will conduct an internal investigation of the unnamed officer.

Keep in mind this all started cuz an off-duty cop was ready to shoot children over walking in his yard. https://t.co/Efm3d4bssc

— X (@XLNB) February 23, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 23, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Two senators aren’t just looking to prevent illegal immigration–they want to scale back legal immigration too.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and Sen. David Perdue (R-Georgia) have introduced a bill called the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, which aims to slash overall immigration to the U.S. by 40 percent over the next year and 50 percent in the next 10 years.

If approved, the bill would limit the number of refugees who obtain permanent residence to 50,000 a year and end the diversity visa lottery, which distributes 50,000 visas annually to citizens of countries with low rates of immigration to the U.S.

Though Perdue said reducing immigration would “help improve the quality of American jobs and wages,” one Democratic senator argued otherwise.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire) said in a statement:

This legislation sends a terrible message to the rest of the world and is unquestionably a job killer. Immigrants contribute greatly to our country’s entrepreneurial spirit, spurring job growth in New Hampshire and across the country. Cutting successful visa programs and needlessly separating immigrant families is just wrong and senseless.

While U.S. citizens are currently allowed to sponsor their spouses, parents, siblings and children for green cards, the bill mandates that moving forward, they would only be able to sponsor spouses and unmarried minor children.

Cotton said in an interview with MSNBC that the RAISE Act would curb non-skills-based immigration. Immigrants with employment-based green cards would not be affected, he said.

“It simply tries to get a handle on 1 million immigrants coming here a year, virtually none of whom are coming here based on their employment skills or demonstrated economic need,” he said. “I don’t think our immigration system is working for Americans.”

He told POLITICO that President Donald Trump’s administration has been receptive to the proposal so far.

“Donald Trump was the only one who saw that most Americans don’t like our current immigration system,” he said. “This is just the area of politics where I think leaders and elites are most disconnected from the people. Not just Republicans but in both parties, in business, in the media, in the academy, culture and so forth.”

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How the RAISE Act Would Cut Back Legal Immigration appeared first on Law Street.