Thread: What happened to the millions of illegal aliens granted amnesty under Reagan?

What happened to the millions of immigrants granted legal status under Ronald Reagan?

By Emily Badger November 26, 2014

In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, a piece of legislation granting legal status to undocumented immigrants in the United States that was both more sweeping in ambition and smaller in scale than Barack Obama's executive action last week. The bill was more ambitious in that it sought to create a definitive solution to immigration (that, obviously, did not pan out). It was smaller in scale in that it ultimately touched fewer immigrants than Obama's action could today.

Three million undocumented immigrants applied for legal status under IRCA. Ultimately, about 2.7 million received it.

Because the bill required immigrants to have entered the country prior to 1982, beneficiaries of that amnesty who have stayed in the U.S. have now been here more than three decades. Their lives, in short, could reveal a lot about the long-term and inter-generational consequences of legalization.

So what do we know about what happened to that earlier wave of immigrants? Only a little bit -- and hardly enough to measure the impact of a massive government policy change. The Department of Labor sponsored two survey studies following up on several thousand of the IRCA immigrants -- in 1989 and then again in 1992, five years after the law went into effect.

Those studies suggested that immigrants made significant wage gains in the years after legalization, many of them by obtaining better jobs. Government records also revealed over time how many of them became naturalized citizens. In 1996, the year the entire IRCA cohort was eligible, a quarter of a million were naturalized. By 2001, one-third of the entire group had been.

These naturalization rates suggest that many immigrants may not have been looking for citizenship so much as economic stability. That trend, too, is in keeping with what many immigrants say of their long-term intentions.

"When you talk to immigrants, many of them say that they plan in the long run to return home, to retire back to Mexico, to Central America," says Marc Rosenblum, the deputy director of the U.S. Immigration Program at the Migration Policy Institute. "They’re looking for short-term security."

Mexican immigrants under IRCA were also the least likely to seek citizenship, mirroring a long-term pattern.Being closer to home, Rosenblum suggests, may make it feel easier to go back.

Until the late 1990s, Mexico also didn't offer dual citizenship.
Beyond the 1992 study, though, there is no survey data tracking how the following years unfolded. And there's similarly little known about the prospects over time of two smaller waves of immigrants granted reprieves -- in an effort to patch IRCA -- by Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

"That means that we don’t know a lot about some of the things like how their children have fared, their participation in the political process, other non-economic indicators of well-being and integration and health," Rosenblum says. "There’s a whole long list of things that we don’t really know, especially over time."

There's reason to suspect, however, that giving an immigrant legal status might impact much more than his or her job prospects. "There’s stress associated with the fear of deportation that would be reduced," Rosenblum says. And that implies that immigrants might have better health outcomes once that fear is removed — just as they'd have better outcomes thanks to access to health insurance that comes with better jobs.

Other research suggests that children of undocumented immigrants are more likely to be poor and in poor health than children of legal parents. And so we might reasonably expect the children of immigrants to benefit from their legal status, too — even if they're not born until well after any amnesty is granted.

And then there are many more questions: Are immigrants more likely to invest in education, or community institutions, or political participation once they have legal status? Do they become more likely to learn English? Do their children become more likely to go to college, or to experience upward mobility?

Immigrant communities are often less likely to report crimes or cooperate with law enforcement, for fear of deportation, or of exposing friends and family who are undocumented. So what might happen to crime reporting and community policing after a wave of legalization?

We also don't know a lot about what happens to the jobs they leave as they move on to better work, or their impact on the wages of other workers, or on the finances of the communities where they live.

Obama last week did not extend the same offer that Congress did in 1986. He promised a temporary answer -- deferred deportations for as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants -- not a permanent path to citizenship. And so it's likely that the consequences for families now will look different, too. But it's also possible that we could be having a different conversation this time around about immigration reform if we better knew how much it benefited families and communities and tax coffers the last time.

What if we knew, for instance, that children whose parents were granted legal status were less likely to have diabetes? Or that undocumented day laborers were more likely to become licensed electricians? Or that parents were more likely to join the PTA if they became legalized residents?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f250b02e678e

Children of Reagan’s amnesty fight for another despite Trump’s resistance

Statement on Signing the Immigration Act of 1990 November 29, 1990

George Bush 1990: Book II Today I am pleased to sign S. 358, the "Immigration Act of 1990" -- the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws in 66 years. This Act recognizes the fundamental importance and historic contributions of immigrants to our country. S. 358 accomplishes what this Administration sought from the outset of the immigration reform process: a complementary blending of our tradition of family reunification with increased immigration of skilled individuals to meet our economic needs. The legislation meets several objectives of this Administration's domestic policy agenda -- cultivation of a more competitive economy, support for the family as the essential unit of society, and swift and effective punishment for drug-related and other violent crime. S. 358 provides for a significant increase in the overall number of immigrants permitted to enter the United States each year. The Act maintains our Nation's historic commitment to family reunification by increasing the number of immigrant visas allocated on the basis of family ties. At the same time, S. 358 dramatically increases the number of immigrants who may be admitted to the United States because of the skills they have and the needs of our economy. This legislation will encourage the immigration of exceptionally talented people, such as scientists, engineers, and educators. Other provisions of S. 358 will promote the initiation of new business in rural areas and the investment of foreign capital in our economy. I am also pleased to note that this Act facilitates immigration not just in numerical terms, but also in terms of basic entry rights of those beyond our borders. S. 358 revises the politically related "exclusion grounds" for the first time since their enactment in 1952. These revised grounds lift unnecessary restrictions on those who may enter the United States. At the same time, they retain important administrative checks in the interest of national security as well as the health and welfare of U.S. citizens. Immigration reform began in 1986 with an effort to close the "back door" on illegal immigration through enactment of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). Now, as we open the "front door" to increased legal immigration, I am pleased that this Act also provides needed enforcement authority. S. 358 meets several objectives of my Administration's war on drugs and violent crime. Specifically, it provides for the expeditious deportation of aliens who, by their violent criminal acts, forfeit their right to remain in this country. These offenders, comprising nearly a quarter of our Federal prison population, jeopardize the safety and well-being of every American resident. In addition, S. 358 improves this Administration's ability to secure the U.S. border -- the front lines of the war on drugs -- by clarifying the authority of Immigration and Naturalization Service enforcement officers to make arrests and carry firearms. S. 358 also improves the antidiscrimination provisions of the IRCA. These amendments will help deter discrimination that might be related to the implementation of "employer sanctions" under the 1986 law. In this regard, S. 358 helps to remedy unfortunate side effects of this important deterrent to illegal immigration. In signing this legislation, I am concerned with the provision of S. 358 that creates a new form of relief known as "temporary protected status." The power to grant temporary protected status would be, except as specifically provided, the "exclusive authority" by which the Attorney General could allow otherwise deportable aliens to remain here temporarily because of their nationality or their region of origin. I do not interpret this provision as detracting from any authority of the executive branch to exercise prosecutorial discretion in suitable immigration cases. Any attempt to do so would raise serious constitutional questions. George Bush The White House, November 29, 1990. Note: S. 358, approved November 29, was assigned Public Law No. 101 - 649. Citation: George Bush: "Statement on Signing the Immigration Act of 1990," November 29, 1990. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=19117.

US immigration legislation online
1990 Immigration and Nationality Act (An act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to change the level, and preference system for admission, of immigrants to the United States, and to provide for administrative naturalization, and for other purposeS. 358; Pub.L. 101-649; 104 Stat. 4978.101st Congress; November 29, 1990. You can find the full text of this law as a PDF here. SUMMARY (Focus on diversity visas provision) Among other provisions, the 1990 Immigration Act instituted the Diversity Visa Lottery Program. Starting in 1991, every year the Attorney General, decides from information gathered over the most recent five year period the regions or country that are considered High Admission or Low Admission States. A High Admission region or country is one that has had 50,000 immigrants or more acquire a permanent residency visa. The High Admission regions are not given visas under this act in order to promote diversity. There are 6 different regions: Africa; Asia; Europe; North America; Oceania; South America, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. Visas are given to countries in these regions that do not meet the quota. To qualify for this visa the immigrants must have a high school diploma or its equivalent. They must have at least 2 years of work experience along with 2 years of training at that job. The Secretary of State must keep track of the immigrants’ age, occupation, education, and what they consider important characteristics or information. The Secretary of State issues visas to the immigrants who meet all these qualifications using random selection. The children and the spouses of the immigrants that are approved are also granted visas to obtain permanent residency. Displaced Tibetans were given 1,000 immigrant visas starting in 1991 for a 3 year period. (Summary by Stephanie Stone and Christina Faubert) RELATED SITESStatement on Signing the Immigration Act of 1990 - President George H.W. Bush’s response to signing the 1990 Immigration Act. New rules on immigration: Immigration Act of 1990 - 1991 article from Nation's Business. The Impact of the Immigration Act of 1990 on U.S. Immigration - An academic paper that compares immigration after the 1990 Immigration Act to projections of what it would have been like without the 1990 changes. 1990 immigration law means good news, bad news for international scholars - Although the 1990 Immigration Act did help promote diversity in immigration, it also made it harder for Professors to come to America to teach.s)

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=19117