Powered by
TTSReader
Share this page on
Article provided by Wikipedia


( => ( => ( => Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 [pageid] => 932462 ) =>
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
""Great Seal of the United States
"Acronyms (colloquial) IRCA
Nicknames Simpson–Mazzoli Act
Enacted by the "99th United States Congress
Effective Signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986
Citations
Public law Pub.L. 99–603
"Statutes at Large 100 "Stat. 3359
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the Senate as S. 1200 by "Alan K. Simpson on May 23, 1985
  • Committee consideration by "Senate Judiciary, "Senate Budget
  • Passed the Senate on September 19, 1985 (69–30)
  • Passed the House on October 9, 1986 ("voice vote after incorporating H.R. 3810, passed 230–166)
  • Reported by the joint conference committee on October 14, 1986; agreed to by the House on October 15, 1986 (238–173) and by the Senate on October 17, 1986 (63–24)
  • Signed into law by President "Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 "Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986, also known as the Simpson–Mazzoli Act, signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986, is an "Act of Congress which reformed "United States "immigration law. The Act[1]

At the time, the "Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that about four million illegal immigrants would apply for legal status through the act and that roughly half of them would be eligible.[2]

Contents

Legislative background and description[edit]

"Romano L. Mazzoli was a Democratic representative from "Kentucky and "Alan K. Simpson was a Republican senator from "Wyoming who chaired their respective immigration subcommittees in Congress. Their effort was assisted by the recommendations of the bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by Rev. "Theodore Hesburgh, then President of the "University of Notre Dame.

The law criminalized the act of engaging in a "pattern or practice" of knowingly hiring an ""unauthorized alien"[3] and established "financial and "other penalties for those employing "illegal immigrants under the theory that low prospects for "employment would reduce undocumented immigration. Regulations promulgated under the Act introduced the "I-9 form to ensure that all employees presented documentary proof of their legal eligibility to accept employment in the United States.[4]

These sanctions would apply only to employers that had more than three employees and did not make a sufficient effort to determine the legal status of their workers.

The first Simpson–Mazzoli Bill was reported out of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The bill failed to be received by the House, but civil rights advocates were concerned over the potential for abuse and discrimination against Hispanics, growers' groups rallied for additional provisions for foreign labor, and the "U.S. Chamber of Commerce persistently opposed sanctions against employers.

The second Simpson–Mazzoli Bill finally passed both chambers in 1985, but it came apart in the conference committee over the issue of cost. The year marked an important turning point for the reform effort. Employer opposition to employer sanctions began to subside, partly because of the "affirmative defense" clause in the law that explicitly released employers from any obligation to check the authenticity of workers' documents.

Also, agricultural employers shifted their focus from opposition to employer sanctions to a concerted campaign to secure alternative sources of foreign labor. As opposition to employer sanctions waned and growers' lobbying efforts for extensive temporary worker programs intensified, agricultural worker programs began to outrank employer sanctions component as the most controversial element of reform.

Impact[edit]

On labor market[edit]

According to one study, the IRCA caused some employers to discriminate against workers who appeared foreign, resulting in a small reduction in overall Hispanic employment. There is no statistical evidence that a reduction in employment correlated to unemployment in the economy as a whole or was separate from the general unemployment population statistics.[5] Another study stated that if hired, wages were being lowered to compensate employers for the perceived risk of hiring foreigners.[6]

The hiring process also changed as employers turned to indirect hiring through "subcontractors. "Under a subcontracting agreement, a U.S. citizen or resident alien contractually agrees with an employer to provide a specific number of workers for a certain period of time to undertake a defined task at a fixed rate of pay per worker".[6] "By using a subcontractor the firm is not held liable since the workers are not employees. The use of a subcontractor decreases a worker's wages since a portion is kept by the subcontractor. This indirect hiring is imposed on everyone regardless of legality".[6]

On illegal immigration[edit]

There have been various law changes over the years that encouraged immigrants to enter or exit the United States. With the railroad, World War II, and agricultural work force demands, many immigrants saw the opportunity to come to the United States temporarily for money or a better life. An increase in legal immigrants migrating to the United States also led to an increase of undocumented immigrants, especially from Mexico. Most of these immigrants searched for and gained jobs where hard labor was needed. As the immigration population increased American citizens started to worry about their impact on the economy.

The reform did not have a lot of impact on decreasing the immigrant population, "Until 2012, there was virtually no movement in Congress to deal with the problem of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States since the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted amnesty to many of the 3.2 million illegal immigrants living in the United states."[7]

On crime[edit]

One study finds that the legalization of three million immigrants reduced crime by 3-5%, primarily property crime.[8] The author finds that this is due to greater job market opportunities for the immigrants.[8]

Structure of the Act and relationship to United States Code[edit]

Following the Short title, the IRCA is divided into seven Titles (I through VII). Title I is divided into parts A, B, and C, and Title III is divided into parts A and B. The IRCA affects 8 USC 1101. Additional portions of the U.S. Code created or amended by the IRCA include, but are not necessarily limited to:

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Coutin, Susan Bibler. 2007. Nation of Emigrants. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. pg 179
  2. ^ Branigin, William (March 3, 1987). "U.S. Migrant Law Falls Hard On Jobless in Central Mexico". The Washington Post. p. A1. 
  3. ^ See section 101 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to create a new section 274A, codified as 8 U.S.C. section 1324a.
  4. ^ 8 C.F.R. sec. 274a.2.
  5. ^ Lowell, Lindsay; Jay Teachman; Zhongren Jing (November 1995). "Unintended Consequences of Immigration Reform: Discrimination and Hispanic Employment". Demography. Population Association of America. 32 (4): 617–628. "doi:10.2307/2061678. "JSTOR 2061678. 
  6. ^ a b c Massey, Douglas S. (2007). "Chapter 4: Building a Better Underclass". Categorically Unequal: The American Stratification System. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. pp. 143–145. "ISBN "0-87154-585-3. 
  7. ^ "Immigration Policy". credorefernce.com. Roger Chapman and James Ciment. 
  8. ^ a b Baker, Scott R. "Effects of Immigrant Legalization on Crime †". American Economic Review. 105 (5): 210–213. "doi:10.1257/aer.p20151041. 

External links[edit]

) )