Amnesty: Who Is Eligible

views updated

Amnesty: Who Is Eligible

News article

By: Anonymous

Date: November 3, 1986

Source: "Amnesty: Who is Eligible." The New York Times, November 3, 1986.

About the Author: Founded in 1851, The New York Times is one of the largest national newspapers with a daily circulation of over one million copies.

INTRODUCTION

This news article reports on the eligibility criteria for legalization of unauthorized residence in the United States, which formed part of the 1986 Immigration and Control Act (IRCA). It highlights the anticipated difficulty that that undocumented immigrants might have had in providing evidence of their eligibility for legalization and the risky situation they could have put themselves in by declaring themselves illegally present. At the time, it was expected that many illegal migrants would not apply for amnesty for these reasons.

The objective of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was to reduce the level of illegal migration and residence in the United States, and the Act was passed in response to rapidly increasing levels of undocumented migration, especially from Mexico. Research studies have estimated that by 1986 there may have been between three million and five million undocumented immigrants living in the United States.

IRCA aimed to tackle the problem of illegal migration and residence in several ways, including strengthening the operations of the U.S. Border Control. Its most radical measure, however, was the provision to legalize those undocumented migrants who had lived in the United States continuously since 1982. This was only finalized following a very lengthy process of debate and amendment to the original bill in Congress, during which there was considerable lobbying by various interest groups, including anti-immigrant organizations that were opposed to its proposals to legalize the status of existing undocumented residents, and civil rights groups and employer associations who supported the proposed amnesty, which would minimize disruption to the U.S. economy and take account of human rights issues in tackling undocumented residence.

The amnesty was introduced particularly to soften the immediate effects of the sanctions that the Act imposed on employers that knowingly recruited undocumented workers. The employment opportunities available in the United States were thought to be the driving force behind the increase in unauthorized migration and the new sanctions were intended to deter employers from recruiting undocumented migrants and new unauthorized migrants from entering the country.

In addition, the Act introduced temporary visas for seasonal agricultural workers, who were not required to meet the length of residence criteria applied to other unauthorized immigrants, but only had to have worked in seasonal agricultural jobs in the United States for at least ninety days in the preceding three years. This measure addressed the big demand in seasonal agricultural for temporary workers, which had traditionally been filled by migrants, many of them unauthorized.

Under the agreed amnesty provisions, eligible applicants were granted temporary resident alien status and were required to apply for permanent residence status within a year. Those receiving temporary employment visas under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program would be allowed to apply for permanent residence after two years.

PRIMARY SOURCE

HOUSTON, Nov. 2— Under the new immigrant legislation, which President Reagan has said he will sign, legal status will be available for illegal aliens who have been "continuously physically present" in the United States since before Jan. 1, 1982, except for "brief, casual and innocent absences."

Those convicted of one felony or three or more misdemeanors are not eligible. Applications will be taken over a 12—month period beginning not later than 6 months after the law is enacted. Aliens must submit proof of continuous residence, preferably "employment-related," although the Attorney General may authorize other means. Documentation must be confirmed by "independent corroboration." Applicants must also demonstrate "minimal understanding of ordinary English" and knowledge of American government and history, or be studying these. Exceptions may be made for those over 65 years of age. Five years after becoming permanent legal residents, the immigrants may apply for citizenship.

It is uncertain just how many will apply for legal status, or how many will gain it. Some say, on the basis of foreign experience, that the number will be much smaller than expected. But Charles C. Foster, a leading Houston immigration lawyer, believes otherwise. "Once word gets out that the program is being administered in a reasonable manner and people are not being arrested," he said, "the problem will not be too few but too many."

Cheryl L. Schechter, a lawyer for Texas Center for Immigrant Legal Assistance, an arm of Catholic Charities in Houston, said she feared many legitimate applicants would have a terrible problem furnishing documentation, which they have carefully avoided all these years to thwart detection by the authorities. Much will depend, she said, on how the Immigration and Naturalization Service interprets the law.

It is a sign of the lingering fears that many illegal aliens around the country refused to have their names or pictures published when approached for interviews. In San Francisco, Henry Der, executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action, advises applicants to be cautious for the moment.

Many of the aliens said they feared deportation before the amnesty program goes into effect. Under the legislation, any alien with a prima facie case for amnesty may not be deported by the immigration service and must be granted work authorization if he is apprehended before the application period commences.

Ironies abound in all this. For years, illegal aliens have done everything possible to avoid documenting their American existence and jobs; now, the Government says that, for them to remain here, they must prove they did everything they were not supposed to have. Moreover, to gain amnesty, one must prove "continuous unlawful residence"; those who maintained legal immigration status are ineligible to be legal permanent residents.

SIGNIFICANCE

In the event, more than 1.7 million people had applied for the main amnesty by December 1991 and ninety-five percent were granted temporary residence, of which the vast majority were subsequently approved for permanent residence. This indicates that the concerns about illegal immigrants being deterred by the eligibility criteria were unfounded. However, as there were no firm estimates of the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States before 1986, it is impossible to know how many remained clandestine. There were also around 1.3 million applicants for the Agricultural Workers amnesty, significantly more than had been expected, and again the vast majority were approved.

Subsequent research has indicated that the Immigration Reform and Control Act was not very successful in reducing illegal immigration to the United States. Although there was a short-term decline in the estimated stock of undocumented migrants following the passage of IRCA, this is likely to have been due mainly to the change in status of so many previously undocumented migrants. By 1989, however, the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that the number of undocumented residents in the United States remained at a level of around two to three million. This has been attributed partly to the ineffectiveness and lack of adequate enforcement of the employer sanctions, which has meant that there have been continuing job opportunities to attract unauthorized migrants to the United States. There was also evidence of fraud among applications for the Seasonal Agricultural Workers program, with false documents being submitted in many cases, and it has been argued that the existence of this program may even have increased illegal entry to the United States, by attracting new migrants who wished to apply fraudulently for residence under the scheme.

Some observers of the effects of the 1986 Act have argued that, rather than strengthening immigration control, it reflected the continuing liberalization of U.S. immigration policy.