Mediaboss Marketing

The admission adds to the other forecasts and the real-world data now which are bolstering Trumps prediction that a reduced inflow of foreign workers will boost wages for working Americans. Overall, Trumps Hire American policy is opposed by the investors, business groups and employers who gain from the nations cheap-labor economic policy.

The new admissions are buried under the groups diversionary claims that Trumps merit immigration plan dubbed the RAISE plan will reduce total employment and business revenue by 2027. The Penn Wharton Budget Model group says:

By 2027, our analysis projects that RAISE will reduce GDP by 0.7 percent relative to current law, and reduce jobs by 1.3 million. By 2040, GDP will be about 2 percent lower and jobs will fall by 4.6 million.

The groups report is being accepted by credulous reporters, but it is a diversion because it distracts readers from the hidden admission that Trumps reform will accomplish what it is intended to accomplish to raise wages and to get more Americans back to work.

The popular Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act wouldraise Americans wages by deliberately reducing the inflow of wage-cutting cheap-labor immigrants. With fewer imported workers, native-born Americans will be able to get higher wages via the normal rule of supply-and-demand in the labor market, says the plan, which is championed by Trump and which was drafted by two GOP Senators, Georgia Sen. David Perdue and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton.

When pressed by Breitbart News, the groups leader, economic professor Kent Smetters,admitted that Trumps merit immigration plan will continue to raise Americans wages for the next 33 years:

By 2027, wages increase a small amount (0.231%) relative to baseline; by 2040, wages increase by an even smaller amount (0.158%).

That is a very small increase but the Penn Wharton group has declined to explain why the increase is so small. Instead it has kept secret critical assumptions about productivity, investment and workforce participation. Smetters told Breitbart News:

Despite our best efforts at complete transparency, I appreciate that our written analysis was short on details I agree that we can improve our communications of describing the sophisticated nature of our model, that is, besides just showing the underlying math equations, which are available in white paper presentations on our website.

Smetters answer came after Breitbart News emailed critical questions to several academic and business advisors working with Setters and his group.

Smetters told Breitbart News why his group did not publish the wage numbers:

Instead of reporting wage numbers, we originally choose to report the change in per capita GDP because: (a) for these purposes, we think it represents a more comprehensive summary statistic of average economic wellbeing; (b) and, in any case, both of the changes in the ratios (wages and per capita GDP) are very small.

Making too big a deal about very small deltas [changes] strikes me as false precision. In our last immigration report last summer, conservatives and recall that I was a political appointee during the first term of Bush seemed to be content with us reporting per capita GDP ratios. However, we will update the current report with some wage information as well, since more information is, of course, the best.

The group also hid its admission that the Trump merit plan will also help millions of sidelined Americans get jobs.

The group hid that admission by first claiming that the economy would be 1.3 million fewer jobs in a decade than is now predicted, while burying the fact that Trumps plan would reduce the inflow of foreign workers by roughly 3.5 million over the same period. So a simple subtraction of 3.5 million imported workers from an economy with just 1.3. million fewer jobs suggests that Trumps very popular plan will help bring roughly 2.3 million sidelined Americans back into the workforce.

In a convoluted admission, Kent admitted the wage-increase caused by the reform plan would help remaining unemployed Americans find jobs, saying:

These small [wage] changes just are not enough to boost the participation rate of remaining workers very much.

Very much is an admission that Trump plan does raise the participation rate of Americans.

In a podcast interview with a university employee, Smetters also said Trumps plan would cut total jobs by 4 million in 2040. But, assuming no other changes, Trumps merit plan could also reduce the immigration inflow by roughly 10 million over the same period. Those two numbers suggest Trumps plan will create roughly 6 million extra jobs for Americans by 2040.

In links behind the main page, the group says its model is similar to the analysis used by the Congressional Budget Office during the 2013 debate over the Gang of Eight cheap-labor-and-amnesty bill. That bill would have approved a tsunami ofroughly 46 million legal immigrants from 2013 to 2033, and invited an unlimited inflow of foreign white-collar workers.

In 2013, this reporter noted that the CBO admitted employees would get less financial benefit from the mass-immigration economy than would investors for at least 20 years. The rate of return on capital would be higher [than on labor] under the legislation than under current law throughout the next two decades, says the report, titled The Economic Impact of S. 744. It continued:

Because the bill would increase the rate of growth of the labor force, average wages would be held down in the first decade after enactment The legislation would particularly increase the number of workers with lower or higher skills but would have less effect on the number of workers with average skills. The wages of lower- and higher-skilled workers would tend to be pushed downward slightly (by less than percent) relative to the wages of workers with average skills.

In September 2016, a pro-immigration panel selected by the National Academies of Science admitted that immigration imposes a 5.2 percent tax on Americans salaries.

In June 2016, Moodys Analytics issued a report saying that Trumps campaign promise to reduce immigration would spike Americans salariesand also reduce the price of housing for young American families.

In July and August, U.S. employers complainedthat they have to increase salaries for Americans because they cant import all the foreign workers they wish. The reducing flow of foreign workers is also prompting employers to buy labor-saving machinery from U.S. manufacturing workers.

At the same time, business groups and progressive activists are urging the government to expand the economy by importing more consumers and cheap employees.

Smetters shares that expansion-via-immigration view, saying his podcast that If we didnt change the skill mix but we just increased the number of legal immigrants, it would have a very big positive impact on the economy.

The Penn Wharton Budget Model is backed by several investors who stand to gain from an increased inflow of consumers and cheap workers.

In his August 2 presentation of Trumps merit plan to the media, presidential advisor Steven Miller made clear the Presidents plan to raise Americans wages:

At the end of the day, President Trump has been clear that he is a pro-high-wage President. He ran as a pro-high-wage candidate, and thats what this policy will accomplish.

At the same time, to the point about economic growth, were constantly told that unskilled immigration boosts the economy. But again, if you look at the last 17 years [of mass immigration], we just know from reality thats not true. And if you look at wages, you can see the effects there. If you look at the labor force, you can see the effects there.

And so again, were ending unskilled chain migration, but were also making sure that the great inventors of the world, the great scientists of the world, that people who have the next great piece of technology can come into the United States and compete in a competitive application process a points-based system that makes sense in the year 2017.

The annual inflow of foreign workers is very large.

In 2016, for example, federal data shows thatformer President Barack Obama gave federal Employment Authorization Document work permits toat least 2.3 million migrantsfor U.S. jobs, and approved visas for roughly 500,000 outsourcing workers, such as the H-1B white-collar workers, H-2B blue-collar workers and H-2A agriculture workers. Those temporary workers were in addition to the routine inflow of 1 million legal immigrants and roughly 400,000 illegal immigrants.

The combined inflow delivered almost4 million legal foreign workersto Americans economy in 2016, just as 4 million young Americans turned 18 and began looking for decently paid jobs.

Manypolls showthat Americans are very generous, they do welcome individual immigrants, and they do want to like the idea of immigration. But the polls also show that most Americans are increasingly worried that large-scale legal immigration will change their country and disadvantage themselves and their children.

The currentannual floodofforeign laborspikes profits and Wall Street valuesbycutting salariesfor manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate prices,widens wealth-gaps, reduceshigh-tech investment, increasesstate and local tax burdens, hurtskids schoolsandcollege education, and sidelinesat least 5 million marginalizedAmericansand their families

Read the original:
Donald Trump's Immigration Reform Will Raise Wages, Jobs, Admits Business-Funded Group - Breitbart News

A prominent politician, announcing the results of a commission appointed to study immigration, urged Congress to significantly cut legal migrations to the United States.

The rationale offered was that a flood of lesser-educated, low-skilled immigration drives down wages and hurts employment prospects for Americans with comparable skills and education.

What the commission is concerned about are the unskilled workers in our society in an age in which unskilled workers have far too few opportunities open to them, the politician announced. When immigrants are less well-educated and less-skilled, they may pose economic hardships to the most vulnerable of Americans, particularly those who are unemployed or under-employed.

President Donald Trump? Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) or David Perdue (R-Ga.)?

Try Barbara Jordan, civil rights icon and first black woman elected to Congress from the South.

The nine-member Commission on Immigration Reform that the former Texas congresswoman headed in the 1990s produced a pair of reports one calling for tighter controls on illegal immigration and another calling for cutting back legal immigration to about 550,000 entrants a year.

The specifics look a lot like the RAISE Act, the bill Cotton and Perdue introduced earlier this year to fierce criticism.

The Jordan commission proposed prioritizing skills and education in immigration, while limiting family-based migration to spouses and minor children, unlike the current system, which allows extended relatives to come into the country.

That is similar to the provisions of the RAISE Act, as are Jordan commission recommendations for reducing refugees to 50,000 per year and eliminating the diversity visa lottery, which awards roughly 50,000 green cards annually to applicants chosen randomly from around the world.

"The RAISE Act really is the second coming of the Barbara Jordan commission," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Robert Law, government relations director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, agreed.

"It's literally, word-for-word, how the press release from Cotton and Perdue reads," he said.

What Jordan Recommended Indeed, the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act bears strong resemblance to the Jordan commission recommendations and to subsequent legislation that it inspired. Although the Jordan commission did not call for a points system like that proposed in the Cotton-Perdue bill, it did place the same priority on high-skilled immigration.

The Jordan commission's proposed reduction to 535,000 is similar to the projections of how many legal immigrants the RAISE Act would allow annually. In the 1990s, that represented a reduction of about a third. Compared to today's system, it could be a cut by as much as half.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who sponsored legislation based on the Jordan commission and has agreed to sponsor a House version of the RAISE Act, also sees the similarity.

"The knee-jerk Democratic opposition to the RAISE Act does suggest how radicalized the mainstream Left has become on immigration."

"Legal immigration in the U.S. under the RAISE Act would remain among the most generous levels in the world; half a million legal immigrants would be admitted annually, which aligns with the figure recommended by the Jordan commission," he wrote in response to questions posed by a reporter from The Atlantic.

David Cross, a spokesman for Oregonians for Immigration Reform, said Jordan recognized that minorities are disproportionately more likely to face competition from immigrants.

"I think about the issue of black unemployment, particularly black youth unemployment," he said. "I certainly think that's something Barbara Jordan would have been mindful of."

To see how much the immigration debate has changed over the past two decades, it is instructive to review the reaction that the Jordan commission received. The bipartisan commission, itself, endorsed the proposals on legal immigration by an 8-1 vote. The lone dissenter was the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

While the RAISE Act has been labeled racist by more than one critic particularly after President Donald Trump endorsed it earlier this month the similar proposals by the Jordan commission met with bipartisan praise. Democratic then-President Bill Clinton endorsed it. Then-Rep.Anthony Beilenson (D-Calif.) said he would co-sponsor legislation based on it.

"Consistent with my own views, the commission's recommendations are pro-family, pro-work, pro-naturalization," Clinton said in June 1995.

That's not to say the recommendations did not draw opposition. Pro-immigration groups called it misguided. Pro-business Republicans such as then-House Majority Leader Richard K. "Dick" Armey (R-Texas) feared it would hurt economic growth.

But few questioned the motives of Jordan or other members of the commission, and critics were not so quick to call it bigoted.

"The knee-jerk Democratic opposition to the RAISE Act does suggest how radicalized the mainstream Left has become on immigration," Law said.

He added: "It seems like it's not the message but the messenger."

Congress did not adopt the Jordan commission's recommendations in whole. Krikorian attributed that, in part, to the former congresswoman's untimely death in 1996 at the age of 59.

"When she died, Clinton was free to do whatever he wanted," he said.

A 'Clever Tactic' to Kill Immigration Reform Then-Sens. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) maneuvered in the Judiciary Committee to split the proposal into two pieces one on legal immigration and another on illegal immigration.

"It was a clever tactic, quite frankly," Krikorian said.

It helped killed the legal immigration reforms, but even then, the vote on the illegal immigration bill is revealing.

The Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act passed in 1996 with solid Democratic support. In the House, almost as many Democrats 88 voted "yes" as the 92 who voted "no." It divided Senate Democrats, as well, with 22 voting "yes" and 24 voting "no." Liberal stalwarts such as Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Harry Reid (D-Nev.) supported the bill.

Meanwhile, senators on the floor of the upper chamber voted 80-20 to kill a proposal to reduce immigration by extended relatives of legal residents by at least 10 percent over the ensuing five years. Feinstein offered a similar amendment, but it would have allowed some visas for adult children of legal permanent residents. That failed 74-26.

The House that year killed provisions of the immigration bill that would have cut legal migration by 30 percent after five years and restriction chain migration. The vote was an overwhelming 238 to 183 and included 75 Republicans in the majority. Still, 25 House Democrats sided with the immigration restrictionists.

It seems unlikely that the RAISE Act would attract anywhere close to that level of support from current House Democrats. Law attributed the 1996 vote to the waning vestiges of a Democratic Party primarily concerned with working people in the United States.

"Pretty much since 2013, the Democratic Party totally sold out on immigration," he said. "I would suggest the Democratic Party has been paying lip service to this constituency and taking it for granted."

The Democratic Party of today marches almost in unison in favor of mass immigration and blurs the distinction between legal and illegal migration, Krikorian said. He noted that 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and runner-up Bernie Sanders both advocated essentially applying the "wet foot/dry foot" Cold War policy toward Cubans escaping the communist regime to every immigrant anyone who can make it to America can stay (provided he or she does not commit a crime).

That consensus in the party does not appear to have evaporated since the election, although Krikorian pointed to recent articles by progressive writers T.A. Frank in Vanity Fair, Peter Beinart in The Atlantic, and CNN's Fareed Zakaria questioning the party's immigration absolutism.

"Maybe a few people are having second thoughts about the rush to mass immigration," he said.

Read this article:
Not So Long Ago, Democrats Favored Immigration Curbs - LifeZette

Over eight years, Barack ObamaBarack ObamaBiden endorses Dem in Alabama Senate primary Rice: US has failed in denuclearization of North Korea Trump threatens McConnell MORE systematically dismantled our immigration enforcement apparatus. Remarkably, it only took Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpColbert questions Trump: What's tougher than 'fire and fury'? Trump's DC hotel exceeds expectations making M so far in 2017 Graham on North Korea: 'If we have to, we'll go to war' MORE 200 days as president to reverse the damage done by his predecessor and restore the rule of law.

But wait, wasnt President Obama the deporter-in-chief? Hardly.

In aneffort to appear tough on illegal immigration while peddling the "Gang of Eights" mass amnesty guest worker bill, the Obama administration began cooking the books by manipulating deportation statistics. In immigration law, deportations are the removal of illegal aliens from the interior of the country. To mask the fact that the Obama administration wasnt doing its job within our borders, it began counting turn-aroundsillegal aliens detained close to the border by the Border Patrolas interior removals. No previous administration has counted deportations this way because there is a clear distinction between border apprehensions and interior removals.

The truth is, deportations plummeted throughout Obamas time in office, culminating in a mere 65,000 interior removals last year. The United States has an illegal alien population of at least 11 million, yet the Obama administration was only able to remove 0.06 percent of them in its final year. Hundreds of thousands of identified criminal aliens were ignored, while the odds of anyone being deported merely for being in the country illegally were virtually nil.

Recent data from the Justice Departments Executive Office of Immigration Review conclusively show that there is a new sheriff in town. In just six months, the Trump administration issued nearly 50,000 orders of removal, reflecting a 28 percent increase compared to the same time period in 2016. Similarly, the 73,000 final decisions issued by immigration judges rendered by the Trump administration thus far is 14.5 percent higher than at this point in Obamas final year in office. Notably, total orders of removal and voluntary departures combined (57,069) are 31 percent higher than this time last year.

Perhaps youre familiar with a different phrase to describe voluntary departures: self-deportation. Mitt Romney was mocked relentlessly during the 2012 presidential campaign by President Obama and the media for having the audacity to suggest that illegal aliens will pack up and leave if the U.S. strictly enforces its immigration laws. Yet, this is exactly whats happening now as nearly 7,100 illegal aliens have decided they prefer to return to their home countries on their terms rather than go through the immigration courts and wind up being deported.

This should not be surprising; illegal aliens are rational individuals. When the benefits of living here unlawfully begin to disappearspecifically the ability to work illegallythey correctly reach the conclusion that there is no reason to stay.

How did this happen so quickly?

No magical formula, just good old-fashioned enforcement of the laws passed by Congress. A week into his presidency, Trump issued an interior enforcement executive order that declared all illegal aliens subject to removal (which is exactly what our immigration laws say) but smartly identified criminal aliens and aliens who pose national security threats as priorities for enforcement. This is what real prosecutorial discretion looks like.

By comparison, President Obamas definition of prosecutorial discretion was so broad that it stretched the concept to a point where it rendered many immigration laws meaningless. Through the Morton Memos, named after then-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton, and subsequently the Johnson Memos, President Obama identified several narrow categories of illegal aliens his administration would target, leaving all other illegal aliens exempt from enforcement. As a result,an estimated 87 percentof the illegal alien population was off limits from immigration enforcement, which explains the paltry ICE interior removal numbers.

The Trump Justice Departments press release announcing these key enforcement statistics was titled, Return to Rule of Law. Indeed.

Robert Law is the director of government relations at theFederation for American Immigration Reform(FAIR).

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Here is the original post:
Thank Trump for America's return to real immigration enforcement - The Hill (blog)

Senators Tom CottonTom CottonNew GOP immigration bill would drastically increase border surveillance: report Congress chance to do right by Americas youth Poll: Voters support Trump-backed immigration bill MORE (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) recently introduced a revised version of the bill addressing legal immigration into the United States, the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act. It is supposed to spur economic growth and raise working Americans' wages by giving priority to the best-skilled immigrants from around the world and reducing overall immigration by half.

Supporters include President Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpColbert questions Trump: What's tougher than 'fire and fury'? Trump's DC hotel exceeds expectations making M so far in 2017 Graham on North Korea: 'If we have to, we'll go to war' MORE, Attorney General Jeff SessionsJefferson (Jeff) SessionsBiden endorses Dem in Alabama Senate primary New poll shows Moore leading in Alabama special election primary Senate primaries: How far will Trump go for revenge? MORE, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob GoodlatteBob GoodlatteJudiciary Committee Republicans want a second special counsel: report Mnuchin: Trump administration examining online sales tax issue Republicans battle within party over online sales tax bill MORE, and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke.

Gutierrez has his own problems getting legislation through Congress. Herecently introduced the American Hope Act,H.R. 3591, which is the latest version of the DREAM Act, which would provide lawful status for undocumented aliens who were brought here as children.

Efforts have been made to get a DREAM Act through congress since 2001. No one has succeeded, and Gutierrez wont either unless he can get republican support for his bill.

Can these political opponents work together?

Gutirrez said in apress release for the American Hope Act that, We are not picking good immigrants versus bad immigrants or deserving versus undeserving.

And the RAISE Act would base non-family-based immigration decisions on a merit point system.

Nevertheless, if Gutierrez is willing to compromise on the number of immigrants who will get lawful status, he should be able to negotiate a mutual support agreement with the sponsors of the RAISE Act. His support would be just as valuable to them as theirs would be to him.

In addition to opposition from the democrats, the RAISE Act is going to be opposed by many republicans. The radical changes it would make in family and employment-based immigration would hurt republican constituents too.

Key sections of the RAISE Act.

Section 2 eliminates the Diversity Visa Program which allocates 50,000 immigrant visas annually to a lottery for aliens in countries with low immigration rates.

Section 3 limits the annual number of refugee admissions to 50,000.

Section 4 limits family-based immigrant visas for the relatives of citizens and legal permanent residents to spouses and children under the age of 18 (eliminating adult children, parents, and siblings of U.S. citizens).

Section 5 replaces the current employment-based immigration system with a points system similar to the ones used in Canada and Australia.

Suggestions for a compromise.

The main price for Gutierrezs support would be to establish a DREAM Act program that would be based on an appropriate merit-based point system.

The number of undocumented aliens who might benefit from a dream act can range from 2.5 to 3.3 million. It isnt likely that an agreement will be reached if Gutierrez insists on a number in that range.

Concessions have to be made to achieve an acceptable compromise, and allowing termination of the Visa Waiver Program would be a reasonable choice. An alternative would be to keep the program as is but distribute the visas on a merit point system instead of using a lottery.

The refugee provision is problematic, but the president has sole authority to determine the number of admissions and the current president supports the 50,000 cap. The Democrats will try to eliminate this cap or raise it if they cant eliminate it, but this should not be a deal breaker if the other issues are worked out satisfactorily.

The restrictions on family-based immigration, however, are another matter. They should be modified. Cotton and Purdue doomed their bill to failure with these provisions. They hurt constituents on both sides of the aisle.

Moreover, they do not make any sense. What does national interest mean if the family-unification needs of citizens and legal permanent residents dont count?

Some advocates strongly opposesthe point system because they think it fails to take into account the needs of U.S. businesses, but their concern is based on the point criterion in the current version of the RAISE Act, which has not been subjected to any hearings or markups yet. If the senators and Gutierrez cannot work out a compromise that protects the needs of U.S. businesses, there will be plenty of time to make additional changes.

This isnt just about moving these bills through congress. According to recent Gallup polls, Americans view Congress relatively poorly, with job approval ratings of the institution below 30% since October 2009.

And the current Republican-controlled congress is not turning this around. Reaching an agreement with the Democrats on an immigration reform bill that includes a DREAM Act legalization program would be a good place to start.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

See the original post here:
How Trump's legal immigration cuts could be a blessing to DREAMers - The Hill (blog)

No one knows the Wisconsin labor markets demand for foreign guest workers better than Wisconsin does.

That is the solid foundation on which Congress should allow states to build their own guest worker visa programs. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson and Colorado Rep. Ken Buck, both Republicans, have introduced a bill to do just that, the State Sponsored Visa Pilot Program.

We need to recognize that a one-size-fits-all federal model for visas or guest workers doesnt work, Johnson said.

Hes right. The current federal guest worker visa program could scarcely have been designed more contrary to the dairy states interests than if it had been devised specifically as an anti-Wisconsin policy.

Consider the farm guest worker visa program, called H-2A. It is designed to allow seasonal workers to harvest fruit and vegetable crops. Visas are generally for one to 10 months. Half of the 150,000-or-so H-2A visa workers are employed in five states: Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Washington and California.

The visa virtually ignores the needs of Wisconsins $43 billion-a-year dairy industry. Because of a dearth of American workers interested in dairy farm jobs, immigrant workers make up nearly half of all dairy farm employees in Wisconsin. But unlike the fruit and vegetable farms covered by the H-2A program, dairy farms are not seasonal. They need a visa program that allows workers to be employed 365 days a year.

Despite repeated pleas for change, Congress has failed to act because at the federal level interests are so politically divided that almost no immigration reform is possible. As a result, a high percentage of the foreign workers on Wisconsin dairy farms are estimated to be here illegally. Thats unfair to everyone.

Dairy farmers are not alone. Wisconsins technology, tourism and construction businesses would all benefit from a better visa program that helps employers cope with labor shortages by hiring foreign talent.

The visa proposal from Sen. Johnson and Rep. Buck would give any state the freedom to select and sponsor foreign workers for temporary work visas covering three years, with eligibility for renewal. Visa holders could work anywhere in the sponsoring state. States could form interstate compacts to share guest workers all under the watchful eye of the federal Department of Homeland Security, which would have to approve all visas. By choosing how many and which foreign workers to sponsor, states would also be able to protect citizens from unfair employment competition.

Though Wisconsin would be a prime beneficiary, the bill deserves widespread support. Utah already tried to start its own visa program, only to suffer federal rejection. California, Texas and a handful of other states have debated legislation.

Giving more power over immigration to states is successful elsewhere. Canada and Australia have laws allowing provinces and states to operate their own visa programs.

Allowing states to address their own foreign worker problems by making decisions that suit their particular circumstances should produce better solutions. Let the State Sponsored Visa Pilot Program become law.

Link:
State Journal editorial: Let states tackle immigration reform - Madison.com