Thread: '86 immigration law casts long shadow

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs. ... /606110476

'86 immigration law casts long shadow
Opportunity for some, but a concern for others

By CHRISTINA E. SANCHEZ

christina.sanchez@heraldtribune.com

PALMETTO -- Francisco Walle Jr. points to unit 65 on 14th Street West, where seven family members crammed into a two-bedroom house when they arrived in the United States from Mexico in 1986 with temporary work permits.

Not much has changed. Peach-colored stucco homes line the streets. Doors are still tattered; paint is peeling. The families who live there still work 15-hour days picking tomatoes and crowd into apartments that now rent for $525 a month.

But for Walle, 43, everything has changed. He is now a U.S. citizen and a prosperous businessman, and he owns a home in Bradenton where he lives with his wife and their three sons.

Walle was among the foreign workers for whom 20 years ago the doors of opportunity suddenly and briefly swung wide open.

A law, signed by President Reagan, gave legal status to 3 million foreigners living in the United States.No longer did the undocumented workers need to worry about border crossings, deportations and fake identifications. Many, including Walle, were on the path to U.S. citizenship, good jobs and educational opportunities unimaginable in their native lands.

"It's about having opportunities we don't have in our own country," said Walle. "It's having a better job. It's knowing our kids can go to school and continue on to college. They can doing anything here."

Twenty years later, the Immigration Reform and Control Act continues to cast a long shadow over immigration policy.

Activists seeking amnesty for the 11 million undocumented workers now in the United States point to immigrants such as Walle as examples of how the nation has benefited from granting them legal rights.

But those who want to stop the flood of illegal immigrations and deport undocumented workers view the law as a cautionary tale that should guide the nation's current immigration policy.

By granting millions of illegal immigrants amnesty, they say, the 1986 law enticed millions of workers to cross the border, believing they, too, would get amnesty.

What the 1986 law did -- and didn't do -- is also playing a major role in the current congressional debate.

Looking for a new life

At the time, the 1986 bill was hailed as the solution to stop illegal immigration. But it didn't. Instead, illegal immigration has more than tripled.

The law increased border patrols by 50 percent and established penalties for employers who knowingly hired illegals.

But it also gave permanent residency to illegals who entered the country before 1982 and to temporary workers who did farm labor for 90 days between May 1985 and May 1986. The Walles were part of the latter group. Permanent residency status meant illegals could remain in the country while they applied for citizenship.

"My father worked in construction, the most popular job in Mexico," said Walle. "Then there was the economic crisis in Mexico. We thought we could come here and try a new life."

Walle stayed behind in Mexico to finish school. Just months after his family's arrival, the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed. He was allowed to join his family in 1987 after they gained permanent residency.

The bill allowed immigrant families to bring spouses and children. The Walles paid $185 per family member, nine of them, for the legal residency application.

"Those days it was easy," said Walle, a member of the Mexican Council of Florida, a pro-immigrant rights group. "People thought 'This is going to be this way forever. I am not going to pay the $185 now.' But the deal went away."

Walle and his family spent their first six years picking in the fields. He stopped picking in 1992, and became a farm labor contractor, managing and finding pickers for the tomato fields. He also became president of the Latin American Soccer League of Palmetto, a position he still holds.

By the mid-1990s, many immigrants like Walle had ascended the job ladder.

"About 48 percent of men and 38 percent of women experienced a gain in their occupational status," according to a 2004 report by the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

The 1986 law was supposed to close a porous border and impose sanctions against employers who hired undocumented workers. Neither goal was realized.

"It's not that it failed, but it was abandoned," said David Abraham, a law professor at the University of Miami and an expert on immigration issues. "We've just ignored it."

Abraham said the government refused to enforce sanctions against employers because the U.S. economy had become dependent upon undocumented workers. Mexicans and other illegal immigrants who made it across the border have found employers waiting for them with jobs, from meatpacking plants in the Midwest to construction crews in Florida.

According to a 2005 report by Migration Policy Institute, 90 percent of illegal immigrant men have found work in the United States.

Amnesty out of the debate

Whether even a fraction of the estimated 11 million undocumented workers here today can gain permanent residency, as Walle and his family did 20 years ago, hinges on what happens in Congress.

But the focus of the House and Senate bills has been more on strengthening the border, deporting undocumented workers and cracking down on employers than it has been on opening paths to permanent residency.

Employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers could face criminal prosecution and fines of up to $20,000 for each illegal they hire. The House of Representatives is seeking a 2,000-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, while the Senate calls for a triple-layer, 300-mile wall.

Provisions passed recently in the Senate would give undocumented aliens who have been here five or more years the chance at citizenship. Those here two to five years would have to return to their countries before they could apply to get residency, and those here less than two years would be required to leave.

The House bill offers no such incentives. It calls for the deportation of all illegal immigrants.

Business owner Margarito Perez of Clearwater warns that whatever action Congress takes, it will be difficult to stop the migration of workers seeking opportunities.

Perez swam across a river from Mexico to Texas, where he entered the United States illegally, in 1985. In 1986, he received amnesty.

From there, Perez, then 22, went to Clearwater, where he worked in a small restaurant for 12 years, while also stashing money away for his envisioned investments. Now, he owns two restaurants and two Latin markets in the Tampa Bay area.

"We are looking for the best that in our country we don't have," said Perez, a member of the Mexican Council of Tampa Bay, a group of Mexican business owners in the Tampa Bay area. "It's hard to live well in Mexico."

Perez wants to see immigrants unite to fight for the rights and citizenship opportunities that many of them could be afforded with the passing of the Senate's version of an immigration reform bill.

But for Elizabeth Cuevas-Neunder, a Republican from Sarasota who is running for a seat in the Florida Legislature, repeating 1986 would be a mistake. She favors the House bill.

"Every time we make a decision, we don't foresee the consequences," said Cuevas-Nuender. "That's what happened with this. It was a great decision, but no one really thought about what would happen. History taught us something."

Instead of opening the nation to more illegal immigrants, Cuevas-Nuender said, the United States should pressure Mexico to improve opportunities for its own people.

"We have to help them, but we do not help by giving illegals amnesty," she said. "Let's empower them."

"It's not that it failed, but it was abandoned," said David Abraham, a law professor at the University of Miami and an expert on immigration issues. "We've just ignored it."

I disagree with that last statement. We implying U.S. citizens did not ignore it. We assumed our government enforced the laws they passed. It was the following administrations Clinton, Bush et all who chose deliberately to ignore it because it was contrary to their future goals of a world run by select Corporate cronies.

xanadu,

our government enforced the laws they passed

,

I took it to mean that the GOVERNMENT ignored it. Yes, I was one of those who believed our gov't could be trusted to obey and enforce it's own laws. Shame on me.

'86 immigration law casts long shadow

It sure does. ....... Fortunately.
We don't want another fraud perpetuated on us.

For myself, I knew the government was ignoring it. The flood has just increased day after day here in Texas.

It has been pretty hard to get the rest of the country to see it - until they actually 'feel' the problem.

We can always applaud someone who makes it here in America. There are many businesses cropping up around here. Many of these are Americans who saw an opportunity and come here to open stores that fill the needs of the illegals - grocery, clothing, meat market, loan companies, tire stores, etc. There are the illegals, however, who just set up shop. They will open a small grocery store out of the front of their house, or open a small restaurant. No one ever checks to see if they have a business license, sales tax certificate, health certificate, appropriate zoning. This allows the illegals, once again, to bypass the laws Americans must obey.

They tried to fix the lousey 1986 law in 1996 with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Click the link below, it is to a government website regarding the 1996 reform that were sadly NEVER enforced. WE have more than enough immigration laws, new ones will never help unless they are enforced!!!!!

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/public...sheets/948.htm