Corrections & Clarifications: An earlier version of this article misstated which relatives a U.S. citizen can sponsor for permanent residency.

In a mere three-minute speech at the White House, President Trump proposed Wednesday a sweeping new U.S. immigration system that would overturn the rules for becoming an American citizen and cut in half the number allowed in.

His comments marked a radical break from decades of bipartisan consensus on legal immigration, and the reaction was swift and severe, drawing rebukes from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, who called it a non-starter. Some worried about the impact on their state economies, and others about the nation's tradition as a refuge for immigrants.

The fallout was so great that a White House adviser found himself debating the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty as a beacon of light and welcome for those around the world seeking a better life in the United States, where one in four Americans are first- or second-generation immigrants.

Trump's attacks on illegal immigration have been central to his presidential campaign and his first six months in office, as he mobilized the Department of Homeland Security to ramp up deportations of undocumented immigrants. Wednesday's announcement, however, marked his first attempt to tackle the legal immigration system.

The proposal is part of a bill sponsored by Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia. It would switch from a system based on family members in the U.S. to one based on economic value to the country.

Taking cues from immigration systems in Canada and Australia, the plan would end the long-held practice of U.S. citizens sponsoring parents, siblings and adult children for permanent residence and ultimate citizenship. Americans would only be allowed to bring in their spouses and minor children, a restriction immigration opponents have sought for years.

Instead, a "merit-based" system would grade foreign applicants on their potential contributions to the economy, with the highest scores — and entry — going to those with advanced education, English proficiency and a stellar work history.

Moreover, the bill would slash in half the 1.1 million legal permanent residents admitted to the U.S. last year, and end a diversity program that grants 50,000 long-term visas a year to foreigners from countries that are underrepresented in the U.S. Most are reserved for those from Africa, Asia and eastern Europe.

The end result would be a complete reversal of America's immigration priorities. Currently, about 63% of those granted permanent residency, or green cards, have family ties. Trump's proposal would flip that around to resemble Canada, which grants about 63% of its green cards based on its economic points system.

Trump said the new system would help out-of-work Americans who often compete with low-skilled immigrants who will work for low wages.

"This legislation demonstrates our compassion for struggling American families who deserve an immigration system that puts their needs first and that puts America first," Trump said.

Polls conducted in recent years show that Americans are interested in a merit-based immigration system. According to a 2015 poll from the Pew Research Center, respondents favored a merit-based system over a family-based system 56-37%.

Yet critics argued that the workers Trump is trying to help will end up being hurt the most by the proposal.

Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a group that advocates for immigrants, said the American economy has always relied on a steady stream of high-tech, and lower-skilled, foreign workers to fill glaring gaps in the labor force. Both groups, he said, create and improve U.S. businesses, which leads to more jobs for all Americans.

"It's really easy for us to talk about this in these broad, macroeconomic ways. But this has an incredibly harmful effect on the individual American worker and their family," Noorani said. "By keeping talent out of the country, jobs will stay out of the country and Americans lose. There's nothing abstract about that."

More:Trump backs GOP senators' plan to crack down on legal immigration

Immigration:Canada's 'merit-based' system wins Trump's praise

Related:Merit-based immigration could upend industries

Some members of Congress echoed those economic concerns but also lamented what Trump's proposal means for the identity of the U.S.

"This bill would have us turn our back on America's history as a nation of immigrants and the very thing that makes us both a great power and economically resilient," Democratic Reps. John Conyers of Michigan and Zoe Lofgren of California said in a statement.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Trump's push to focus more on high-skilled immigrants would destroy the low-wage tourism and agricultural businesses in his state.

Trump's focus on high-skilled immigration also runs contrary to the actions of his administration so far.

Shortly after taking office, Trump announced a review of the H-1B visa program, which brings in high-skilled foreign workers trained in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Trump said the program was being abused by technology companies as they imported cheaper foreign workers to replace U.S. tech employees.

Then two weeks ago, Trump's Department of Homeland Security announced it would create 15,000 additional H-2B visas designed for low-skilled workers, such as those in retail, construction, restaurants, hotels and resorts, including those run by the Trump Organization.

White House senior adviser Stephen Miller said Wednesday the Trump Organization would not stop using low-skilled foreign workers until federal law is changed and all businesses are playing by the same rules. Until those changes are made, Miller said, Trump's companies would be at a disadvantage.

Speaking in the White House briefing room, Miller took a question about what Trump's proposal means for the identity of the nation as expressed in Emma Lazarus' poem welcoming the tired, the poor, "your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free."

"The poem you’re referring to was added later, it’s not actually part of the original Statue of Liberty," Miller said.