Editor’s note: This commentary is by Peter Rousmaniere, of Montpelier, who manages the blog, workingimmigrants.
[I]n his State of the Union address on Jan. 30, President Donald Trump said that he wanted the country to have a “safe, modern, and lawful immigration system.” He restated four elements of an immigration reform “framework” that the White House had released on Jan. 25.
What might be the impact on Vermont if Trump’s plan is accepted? The one-page framework addressed some long-standing policy concerns while passing over others. The four policies are protection of Dreamers; merit based vs. family reunification immigration; the immigration lottery; and border security.
A Harvard-Harris poll on Jan. 17-19 of 980 registered voters found a broad level of support for a reform package with these elements.
Voters were asked: “Would you favor or oppose a congressional deal that gives undocumented immigrants brought here by their parents work permits and a path to citizenship in exchange for increasing merit preference over preference for relatives, eliminating the diversity visa lottery, and funding barrier security on the U.S.-Mexico border?”
Every category of political leaning and demographics supported the deal by a majority of at least 60 percent. Liberals liked it by 63 percent; conservatives, by 68 percent.
On specific features, the results varied. Seventy-seven percent said yes to Dreamer access to citizenship. Even conservatives agreed by 64 percent.
The respected Pew Research Center estimated for 2014 the unauthorized populations of Vermont “under 5,000.” That implies that unauthorized persons are about one-half of 1 percent of the state’s population, compared to 6 percent of California’s population.
Congressman Peter Welch said last year that 42 Vermonters had received Dreamer protection. The Trump administration has proposed expanding the scope of the Dreamer program, and if that happens the number of eligible Vermont residents might triple.
A second element in the Trump initiative is to give more preference to immigrants with a high level of formal education and skills. Here, too, there is broad agreement in the poll. As for giving more weight to education and skills over family reunification, 65 percent said yes, with Republicans at 68 percent and Democrats at 63 percent.
But such a merit-based system can be problematic for Vermont. Demand for immigrant workers, in-state and nationally, forms an hourglass. The top half includes medical professionals, computer scientists and engineers. The bottom half includes personal care aides and farm workers. An activist who knows the dairy industry estimates that 90 percent of the hired workforce are immigrants.
The Trump administration has signaled that it wants to reduce the family reunification, or “chain migration” flow by about 40 percent. The framework would do that. If that happens, Vermont residents with family members living abroad may find their dreams of family reunification are diminished. Parents of naturalized adult children could still come, but not be able to take out citizenship. And, no more siblings.
A third element is the 50,000 person a year lottery system. The lottery system is unpopular. Only 32 percent were in favor, 68 percent opposed. The lottery is so small that eliminating it may have no real effect on Vermont.
A fourth element is border security, primarily along the Mexican border. Unauthorized border crossings have been going down well before this administration. The supply of young male workers from Mexico, legal or not, is expected to decline for reasons of Mexican demography and its economy.
The Trump administration’s proposed deal leaves out most of the 11 million unauthorized persons. It does not address refugees, who are arriving now in Vermont in about 40 percent less numbers than a few years ago. Nor is there mention of temporary work visas, on which Vermont employers, including seasonal farms, may depend.
The Vermont congressional delegation has shown itself to be very alert on immigration issues. Now it has a White House proposal to respond to.
