Analysis: Typical Springfieldian would fail Trump-backed immigration test

Will Schmitt
News-Leader

Immigration was ostensibly the reason for President Donald Trump's speech in Arizona on Tuesday, and the commander-in-chief's message to his Phoenix audience was similar to the speech he gave there this time last year.

"The most sacred duty of government is to protect the lives of its citizens, and that includes securing our borders, and enforcing our immigration laws," Trump said. "... The people of Arizona know the deadly and heartbreaking consequences of illegal immigration, the lost lives, the drugs, the gangs, the cartels, the crisis of smuggling and trafficking." 

Besides building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, there are other ways for Trump's administration to heighten the difficulty of coming to America.

President Donald Trump speaks during the Make America Great Again Rally on Aug. 22, 2017, in Phoenix.

Most residents of southwest Missouri couldn't come to the U.S. under a "skills-based" immigration plan that Trump supports. 

A proposal blessed by Trump in a bill backed by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, and Sen. David Perdue, R-Georgia, would enact a point system to determine eligibility for immigration as opposed to the current, employment-based method. 

Other provisions in the legislation would cap the number of refugees granted permanent U.S. visas, eliminate the Diversity Immigrant Visa program and specify requirements to become a naturalized American citizen. 

Stricter limits on immigration have been hallmarks of Trump's policy vision alongside the proposed wall along the U.S. southern border and a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the country until officials "can figure out what is going on."

The proposed immigration system, inspired by Canada and Australia, would require a score of 30, with points awarded based on age, education, fluency in English, job-offer salary and investment plans. 

An ideal candidate would be someone like a 28-year-old with a degree in a STEM field, earning six figures with plans to spend a few million dollars on a business venture. Bonuses are available for major international award-winners and recent Olympic medalists and comparable achievements.

The combination of winning the prestigious Nobel Prize and being a preternaturally talented athlete would rack up a cool 40 points right off the bat, regardless of whether you could afford a condo at the Lake of the Ozarks or speak English with ease.

How would the average person from Springfield fare?

The News-Leader analyzed recent Census data and compared it with the Cotton/Perdue proposal to see how the median Queen City resident would fare if, hypothetically, a person with a similar demographic profile applied for immigration under this standard.

The median age in Springfield is 33.1 years, good for 8 points. The maximum in the age category is 10 points for folks aged 26 to 30. (Folks over 50 would get zero.)

Most residents aged 25 to 34 have a high school diploma or the equivalent, but only 28 percent in that range have a bachelor's degree or above.

So we'll give our hypothetical Springfieldian 1 point for education for having a diploma. The maximum of 13 here would be for those with a U.S. professional or doctorate degree related to science, technology, engineering or math. A bachelor's in any field would earn 6 points.

Next up is fluency in the English language, as measured by the likes of the International English Language Testing System or the Test of English as a Foreign Language.

According to the Census, 99 percent of Springfieldians are estimated to speak English "very well." No surprise here, as it's the native language for almost everyone in the city. 

We'll say our hypothetical subject gets the maximum fluency grade and earns 12 points. Any applicant who scores below the 60th percentile would get 0 points, according to the bill text.

The skills test also calls for job prospects. With an unemployment rate of about 4 percent in the Springfield metropolitan area, you'd think that would be good news.

But the test only awards points for individuals ready to work a job with a salary of at least 150 percent of the median household income in the state. Missouri's median household income in 2015 was $48,173, and 150 percent of that is $72,259.50.

The median income for individuals in Springfield is well below that mark, so that's 0 points for job prospects. Wealthy applicants (those clocking six-figure salaries) would be in line for 8 to 13 points.

No offense to those who are really good at life, but we're going to assume the typical immigration applicant with Springfield-like credentials has not won a Nobel prize and didn't win an Olympic medal recently. That's 0 points for those achievement categories. 

A final category is for those who plan on investing the equivalent of $1.35 million or more in foreign currency in a new American commercial enterprise, keep the business alive for three years and make a management role in the new company their main job. 

Millionaires aren't common. There might be a few News-Leader readers who could shell out that much money, but for the sake of this test, the typical Springfieldian would earn 0 points here.

How would you do?

The News-Leader built a tool to allow you to enter your demographic information and see how you fare under the proposed immigration plan. We're not keeping track of your data, but feel free to share your score on our Facebook page. (Adapted from a similar tool created by TIME magazine.)

 

Can we come in?

With 21 points, our composite Springfield resident would be looking at the wrong side of the wall. If it's any consolation, the reporter who wrote this story couldn't pass. (Nor could his editor.)

The skills test, in its current form, prioritizes young, rich Anglophones. In theory, unemployed, uneducated 20-somethings with $2 million to invest could get 30 to 34 points and be welcomed.

Older people and those without wealth or lucrative job prospects — or those less familiar with English — would be shunted away. For instance, a fluent 51-year-old with a doctorate from a U.S. university would be stuck at 25 points unless he or she had a relatively high-paying job or investment capital.

The bill would create a barrier for foreigners hoping to join a nation comprised of immigrants and their ancestors, and it's been criticized by some for having a potentially negative effect on the economy as the country's workforce ages. A report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that "first-generation immigrants are more costly to governments than are the native-born, but the second generation are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S."

That said, the proposal could be relatively popular. According to a recent POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, three out of five voters support establishing a points system of this kind.