On Monday evening I had the honor of being invited to speak to the San Gabriel Valley branch (“lodge”) of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance. The group is the oldest Asian-American civil rights organization in the U.S., a little humbling for me, and it was especially nice in that I grew up in the SGV, what is now a largely Asian area stretching for 20 miles, beginning just east of downtown Los Angeles. I must say that this was one of the warmest, friendliest and indeed most fun groups I’ve ever addressed, and I was greatly impressed by their commitment to serving the community.

I was asked to talk about H-1B, the RAISE Act (immigration reform bill endorsed by the Trump administration),  and Affirmative Action in college admissions. At the last minute, DACA was added to the topic list. I protested that I had no expertise in the matter, but did speculate that Pres. Trump’s putting the DACA ball back in Congress’ court might give some momentum to the RAISE Act, which most DC people had assumed would not even make it to committee. It’s conceivable, I said, that RAISE could become part of the negotiations in forming DACA legislation. Well, what do you know! This afternoon Reuters reported that Trump wants to link DACA with RAISE.

In my talk, I stated that I personally don’t like RAISE, as I dislike elitist point systems-based immigration policies in general, but that I do support RAISE’s provisions to roll back two of the most heavily-used family-based sections of immigration law. Specifically, the bill would eliminate the ability of U.S. citizens (typically naturalized) to sponsor their parents and adult siblings for immigration. I stressed the fact that neither of these parts of immigration policy is in the national interest, and that a number of members of both parties have in fact expressed support for eliminating them, as RAISE would do.

I knew that those attending my talk would immediately understand the motivation for eliminating the ability to sponsor elderly parents — welfare usage is rampant in this immigration group, in fact virtually standard in the Chinese case. There is cash in the form of SSI, medical care through Medicaid, and miscellaneous items such as subsidized senior housing. I knew that when I said,”Just within a radius of only five miles from here, there are probably at least three or four large senior housing complexes, populated entirely by elderly [Chinese] immigrants,” the audience would know exactly what I was referring to, and would be sympathetic. After all, they don’t like their tax money going to such things — benefits for people who’ve never worked a day in the U.S. — any more than the rest of us do.

But I was less sure that I’d get a positive response to pointing out that the ability to sponsor adult siblings, the so-called Fourth Preference, makes no sense for the national interest either. It leads to chain migration, in which the people at the beginning of the chain have no relation to those just a few links down, and (as the authors of RAISE point out) with no redeeming positive gain to the nation.

Rep. Judy Chu, whose district includes large parts of the San Gabriel Valley, objected when the reform bill crafted by the bipartisan “Gang of 8” proposed eliminating these categories. Chu stressed how important it is to “keep families together.” But if family reunification is so important, why did some of the family members dis-unite from the others by coming to the U.S. in the first place? As I wrote in my 1996 Senate testimony,

Though the idea of reuniting long-lost loved ones is emotionally appealing, the fact is that most immigrants making use of family-reunification categories come to the U.S. primarily for economic reasons, rather than for the putative goal of rejoining family members.

This was noted, for example, in the analysis given by Louisiana State University professor Min Zhou in Chinatown, Temple University Press, 1992, pp.50-54. Dr. Zhou’s point is that people who want to immigrate to the U.S. go about finding some route to achieving that goal, and that family reunification happens to be such a route. One person she interviewed, for instance, says “People are very smart, they know how to get here quickly through the family connections.” Zhou notes that “Immigration opportunities for prospective immigrants would be close to zero without family or kinship connections.” In other words, though the philosophy of immigration law is that one immigrates in order to rejoin one’s family members, many are doing the opposite–rejoining their family members in order to immigrate.

Actually, people in Congress have been trying to eliminate the Fourth Preference since way back in 1986, if not earlier, but have always been blocked by Chinese-American organizations — such as that very same Chinese American Citizens Alliance. But I seemed to be getting looks of agreement from the audience when I made these points, and no one disagreed.  Later one gentleman did say something in opposition privately, but that was all.

I regard this as quite significant. If even the rank-and-file members of this organization, with its history of fiercely defending the Fourth Preference, see that it plays no national-interest role and is in fact widely abused, maybe this anomaly in immigration law can finally be fixed.

What I am saying, in other words, is that while DACA+RAISE is probably a political nonstarter, pairing DACA with some rollback of these inappropriate parts of immigration law might be achievable. Note that RAISE itself would still allow the elderly parents to come to the U.S., but only as long-term visitors, rather than as immigrants. The is the Canadian approach, and should be taken here. Maybe some compromise could also be worked out for the Fourth Preference, giving the siblings special green cards that are not convertible to citizenship, and grandfathering or even fast-tracking those already in the queue.

Stranger things have happened in DC before.


13 thoughts on “RAISE + DACA?

  1. The time it takes to sponsor parents once becoming citizens is short, however, sponsoring siblings can take 30 years from the date of application until the sibling can set foot in the U.S. It took me 16 years to sponsor my sister, and this was in the 1980’s, and my country of origin was not the long wait countries like China, India, Philippines and Mexico.
    Has chain immigration gotten easier since then? What changed?


    • Nothing changed. The waits are long. In some cases, the original immigrant takes an indirect route, sponsoring his/her parent, who in turn sponsors the sibling. But they are willing to wait.


    • It doesn’t matter if the wait is long. The fact is that 65K immigrants are still pouting in the US EVERY YEAR from this category, which does nothing for the country.

      I see so many adult immigrants working in Subways, Mcdonalds, Walmarts and other places now. At the same time, the unemployment rate among the American teens is at record highs. Also, the leftists are shouting blood to push the minimum wage higher because these adult immigrants cannot support themselves on minimum wage jobs. These jobs were meant to be done by the teens. However, teens have been shut out now. Why would anyone hire them when you can get properly trained and meek adult workers for the same price?

      I just recently donated a bunch of baby stuff to someone who was massively struggling to support their family (and yet having a child – this choice baffles me, but I guess my good samaritan instincts do get in the way) and was purely reliant on all forms of government subsidies just to have one single child. The average cost to have a child in the US today is over $12K, and the working people pay a full price.

      These immigrants are sucking the middle class dry. H1Bs are attacking from a different field. Against such an onslaught, I wonder how the hell American middle class even survives today. I guess the 19 trillion dollar national debt can answer that question. Just how long do you think this runaway train can continue?

      At some point, someone has to pay up. If immigrants are incapable of paying, there will be dire consequences. Already, the first generation immigrants have children enrolling colleges and entering job markets. Now that the roles are reversed, I see a trend toward hardliner immigration stance even among this demographic. Regardless of Trump, naked necessities will mandate drastic changes. I see our immigration system overhauled by the year 2023, and the immigration levels reduced by 50% if not more.


  2. The support requirements for sponsored immigrants is ridiculously low. When only 125% of poverty level is required for sponsorship yet students receive free meals with family incomes less than 130% of the poverty level, we are importing welfare cases without regard to the effects on taxpayers.


      • Add the cost of health insurance and all of the subsidies and the multiple benefits to low income elderly immigrants and the cost of welcoming these people gets worse.

        In addition, there are numerous discussions of hiding assets and income in their home countries so they can qualify.

        Remember also that elderly dependents of a deceased worker might be able to collect Social Security survivor’s benefits for the rest of their lives. This period can be longer than the period of benefits to the worker’s children.


  3. “Special green cards”? Is the target same thing only different? We lack any commitment to any clear lines, which has been a mess due to more exception than rule and when rule isn’t enforced.


    • Concerning the “dreamers,” I support giving them amnesty, even though I don’t buy any of the arguments in favor of such. Of course, it would need to be coupled with something strong in the other direction, say universal mandatory E-Verify. Also, I would not support giving the recipients citizenship.

      The Diversity Lottery was brought in by Sen. Kennedy to legalize unauthorized Irish in Boston, not a very good reason. But if the Fourth Preference were eliminated, maybe some modification of the DL would be a good idea, and again, I’d like it to truly be diverse, not elite.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s