Immigration Reform

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) conducted by President Ronald Reagan is viewed as one of the most important policy implementations in U.S. immigration history. As drafted, IRCA was incorporated to be a policy to control and prevent all illegal immigration that took place in the U.S., but the policy was for basically directed at stopping the flow of Mexican immigrants that continues to this day, to be the largest immigration flow in the world. Daniel Tichenor writes in Dividing Lines, “Originally designed as a restrictive enforcement measure, IRCA proved to be surprisingly expansive in both design and effect.” (Tichenor, 262) The whole process of how the plan eventually backfired due to law enforcements shows why the policy
failed. Eventually, this paper demonstrates that IRCA extended movement by making a more noteworthy requirement for it and additionally by inadvertently breaking the customary examples of fleeting and regular migration. The drafters of IRCA came up with three objectives: to legalize the status of millions of undocumented migrants, to prevent immigration through tougher law enforcement, and to prevent the need for immigration overall. Each objective basically tried to ultimately solve the “immigration problem” by greatly decreasing the number of migrants coming in to the U.S; but each in fact ended up increasing immigration. The IRCA’s first aim was to regularize the status of millions of undocumented migrants by legalizing those who entered before January 1982, as well as those that performed temporary services or labor, mainly seasonal agricultural workers. This appears opposite to IRCA’s purpose of limiting immigration into the U.S.; however, legislators saw this first objective as necessary. At first, amnesty dealt with the problem of the large undocumented immigrant population that was involved in the informal economy. By giving these individuals amnesty, they would no longer be considered part of the “illegal immigration problem.” Secondly, this goal included part of a negotiation which was made in order to get the required votes to pass the law. Even those who were opposed to illegal immigration remained mindful of the labor power of immigrants. The politicians those who relied on votes from agricultural employees in agricultural states, knew that their mass voters would be upset if they suddenly lost their massive, cheap work force. This is when politicians made certain that immigrants would continue to contribute to the labor force of the country by providing them with amnesty. The second objective, which included toughening enforcement, suggested closing the doors on undocumented immigrants and reducing their access to work. It was established that there would be fines and even imprisonment on those who transported undocumented immigrants to the U.S. It was also decided that there would be further restrictions on visa applications and tougher border control. It was expected that the changes would stop immigrants from trying to cross the border by making it too big of a hassle. It was also ensured that any employers hiring employees would need to possess legal documentations; it further describes the consequences for those employers that chose to knowingly employ undocumented immigrants. Politicians figured that making work less available would put a dent one of the greatest incentives for immigrants to come to the U.S. Therefore, prevention of prospective immigration personified the justification behind toughening enforcement mechanisms. In the third objective, preventing the need for immigration to the U.S, politicians realized that they had to encourage immigrants to remain in their native countries, especially Mexico. In title VI, IRCA created the Commission for the Study of International Migration and Cooperative Economic Development. The commission reported on “mutually beneficial, reciprocal trade and investment programs that would alleviate such conditions.” IRCA indicated that fixing the poverty, high unemployment and low wages in Mexico would reduce the need for Mexican nationals to immigrate to the U.S. in order to support themselves and their families. This last objective intended to be the most difficult but it held the greatest likelihood of success, since it focused on the source of immigration and included the involvement of the Mexican government. In spite of small differences among individuals, everyone truly believed that the efforts of IRCA would lessen the number of immigrants that crossed the border illegally. The three objectives seemed logical enough and therefore appeared to bring about the desired result. However, those who organized IRCA failed to go beyond their own logic. They failed to see how the three objectives would create results that would end the expanding immigration by accidentally breaking the traditional patterns of temporal and seasonal migration. The completion of amnesty programs irritated the regular pattern of male migration that until that time seemed most common among Mexican migration.
In the past, the majority of immigrants from Mexico were men that temporarily came to provide for their families and would return to Mexico at the end of the earning season. Men saw amnesty as an opportunity to drastically reduce the costs and risks of going back and forth; however, section 210A(d)(5)(A) complicated matters through its requirement which stated that an applicant must remain in the United States continuously for at least three years in order to obtain permanent residency. The failure of men to be with their families for such an extended timeframe made a staggering improvement of family reunification. The federal government tried to solve this new problem by legalizing the immediate family members of those who received amnesty under IRCA through the Immigration Act of 1990, which kind of contradicted the entire purpose of IRCA because they ended up bringing in even more immigrants whereas their main intention was to put a stop on it overall. Moreover, the procedure of family reunification prompted the feminization of movement and advanced a settlement procedure that assisted the expansion in migration. Settlement became common only after the introduction of women and children. In a few years, IRCA transformed “a predominantly rural, male, and temporary flow of migrant workers into a feminized, urbanized, and
permanent population of settled migrants.” While men lost benefits when they moved to the U.S., women welcomed the advantages inside and outside of the home in the U.S. Their longing to improve a life for themselves and their families incited them to build up lasting roots in the U.S. Additionally; they prompted immigration to their relatives in Mexico by raving over the advantages of life in the U.S. also, encouraging their movement. As seen above, the amnesty programs extended beyond the legalized individuals and ended up increasing immigration through a two-step process. To begin with, it made a longing to be with one's family that advanced the inevitable immigration of family. Also, additional immigration resulted from the women who were satisfied with their new lives in the U.S. As a result, the accidental breaking of the traditional patterns of temporal and seasonal migration of men led to a settlement process that eventually increased immigration. The second purpose of stricter enforcement led to the same results as regularization. The drafters of IRCA arranged for the use of tougher enforcement through tighter border control and a duty of employers to hire only legal residents. Tighter border control seemed to initially discourage incoming migration, but it eventually became evident that its only long-term effect was the movement of entrance points to different, more dangerous, areas. On the other hand, the duty placed on employers surprisingly and unintentionally generated additional immigration. Despite the harsh effects on immigrants that ensued from the possibility of employer sanctions, the number of immigrants entering the nation still increased. An overwhelming reason for immigrants to come to the U.S. has been identified as the need to find work. Employers feared that legalized immigrants would move to higher paying jobs, resulting in the loss of their cheap labor. To ensure the passage of IRCA, politicians compromised not to hold employers responsible in verifying the authenticity of their employee’s documentation. Undocumented immigrants got around the need for documentation by providing false documents obtained through the newly created illicit market of document falsification. Furthermore, employers began to increasingly use contracting companies in order to maintain low wages and avoid all possible liability. By using contractors, employers rid themselves of the requisite to provide any documentation for their employees and of the need to verify whether their workers received the minimum wage. Contracting companies originated in the agriculture sector, but soon contractors spread to industrialized areas, opening up new labor markets. The new labor sectors created a greater demand for immigrant workers, which Mexican immigrants filled. Moreover, the decreased wages induced by the employment sanctions required individuals to remain for longer and compelled families to send more people.
The underground labor market of contractors “worsened labor conditions and decreased wages for both legal and undocumented migrants.” When fear compelled employers to use contractors, both legal and illegal immigrants fell under the employment of contracting companies. A 2006 New York magazine article quotes Steven Lee, a former factory manager, admitting that he did not regret hiring undocumented workers because he needed to make a profit in an industry where his competitors also used the cheap labor of undocumented immigrants. Furthermore, the article described how, “The retailers squeeze the manufacturers, the manufacturers squeeze the contractors and the contractors squeeze the workers." Legal immigrants possessed neither the knowhow nor the finances to contest their low wages. The reduction of salaries impacted the amount of remittances sent back to Mexico. This resulted in the need for Mexican families to send more members of the household to work in the U.S. and the need for documented and undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. for a longer period of time. The extended stays led to furtherance of the settlement cycle discussed above. As a result, employee sanctions not only failed to deter immigration, but induced the need for more
migration. Once again the third objective, reducing the need to immigrate by improving the Mexican economy, provoked further Mexican immigration and U.S. settlement. The Commission for the Study of International Migration and Cooperative Economic Development promoted a commercial trade agreement between Mexico and the U.S. because a more open, bi-national market would stimulate investment, job creation, and further economic development in Mexico. The recommendation brought about the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993. NAFTA resulted in consequences opposite of what the commission envisioned. NAFTA’s consequences forced the Mexican labor force to seek work in the United States. First, free trade promoted the mechanization of Mexican agriculture and monopolization of land, in order to compete against American agricultural imports. Free trade facilitated the exchange of ideas and methods between the two nations. Mexican farmers learned about American farming techniques and copied them in order to create better and larger crops. The modernization of farms, therefore, decreased the need of farmhands and led to increased unemployment in rural areas. Additionally, some farmers were pushed out of the market due to their inability to compete with the price of American crops. The displaced farmhands and farmers saw the need to move to the U.S. and other Mexican cities. NAFTA similarly affected the industrialized Mexican cities and their inhabitants. Small businesses in Mexico found it impossible to compete against cheap American imports and were also forced out of business. The displaced industrial workers looked North for new employment opportunities. In the United States, these displaced workers faced the problems created by the employment sanctions described above, requiring them to settle in the United States, and reinforcing the cycle described in the first subsection. The examination of the effects of its three objectives proves the validity of Tichenor’s claim that, even though it was “designed as a restrictive enforcement measure, IRCA proved to be surprisingly expansive in both design and effect.” (Tichenor, 262) The use of amnesty programs resulted the reunification of families and the feminization of immigration, which basically made the immigrants settle permanently in the U.S. And as enforcements got tougher, employers began to hire illegal immigrants with lower paying contracts which required for more family members to immigrate in order to be able to make a living. Finally, the impact of NAFTA on the Mexican economy directed displaced workers to the U.S. in search of jobs. Moreover, the three objectives broke the traditional patterns of temporal and seasonal migration of men disappeared by making familial settlement the norm. Since the “immigration problem” continues to plague the country, solutions continue to be designed and introduced to Congress; however, the bills overwhelmingly ignore the consequences of IRCA in their designs. Politicians and intellectuals must keep the consequences of IRCA in mind. Specifically, there is a need to provide an incentive for immigrants to return to their home countries instead of settling, which IRCA has shown produces further immigration.