Does Trump’s Immigration Plan Actually Cut Legal Immigration?

April Soasti, 9, front, and her sister Adriana, 7, stand with other community members after the Trump administration announced it was ending Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA.)Stephanie Zollshan/AP

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

As President Trump promised, his immigration plan consists of four pillars. The first is DACA and the second is better border security. There are things to argue about here, but they’re pretty easy to understand and the issues are well defined.

The third pillar is the diversity visa lottery. This is a program that distributes a small number of green cards to countries that don’t normally send us very many immigrants. If I understand Trump’s plan correctly, the lottery would be eliminated but the green cards would be redistributed to the current employment-based quotas (i.e., they’d become “merit based”). Again, there are things to argue about here, but eliminating the lottery wouldn’t reduce the net number of immigrants and might or might not even change their composition very much.¹

And that brings us to the fourth pillar: family sponsorships, which conservatives refer to as “chain migration.” The Trump plan would allow citizens and permanent residents to sponsor spouses and minor children for visas, but would no longer allow sponsorship of parents, siblings, or adult children. What effect would this have?

The details of Trump’s plan make a huge difference here. At a first pass, it would cut legal immigration by about 400,000, according to estimates from the Cato Institute. That’s about a third of all legal immigration, so it’s a very big number. However, there are currently about 4 million people on the waiting list for family-sponsored visas. If these people are grandfathered, the number of legal immigrants would stay about the same. In a decade or two, after the backlog is worked off, legal immigration levels would start to drop.

So which is it? A cut in legal immigration of about a third? Or no cuts at all for at least a decade? This is an enormous difference, and one that overwhelms all the other details. Until we have a concrete answer about this, I think it’s impossible for folks on either side of the debate to have any real idea of whether Trump’s plan is a reasonable starting point for negotiations.

¹Trump’s “shithole” comment has caused everyone to assume that ending the diversity lottery would primarily affect black immigrants from Africa. That might well be true, but I’d be interested in seeing some expert analysis of this.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend