Immigration Reform And Control Act Research Articles

Immigrant legalization and the redistribution of state funds: Evidence from the 1986 IRCA

We study the impact of immigrant legalization on fiscal transfers from state to local governments in the United States, exploiting variation in legal status from the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). State governments allocate more resources to IRCA counties, an allocation that is responsive to the electoral incentives of the governor. Importantly, the effect emerges prior to the enfranchisement of the IRCA migrants and we argue it is driven by the IRCA’s capacity to politically empower already legal Hispanic migrants in mixed legal status communities. The IRCA increases turnout in large Hispanic communities as well as Hispanic political engagement, without detectably triggering anti-migrant sentiment.

Immigration, amnesties, and the shadow economy

AbstractThis paper investigates the effects of immigration and immigration amnesties on the shadow economy. We make use of an array of Italian immigration data and original shadow economy estimates for the years 1996–2006, comprising a panel of local‐level aggregate statistical information, and a microlevel survey of representative households. We find a robust and positive relationship between the presence of immigrants and the unobserved economic activity at the local level. Nevertheless, the impact of immigration on the Italian unofficial economy is relatively small in magnitude. We also exploit the discontinuity created by the implementation of the 2002 immigration amnesty, which increased the stock of documented migrants by almost 50%. According to our results, the Italian 2002 immigration policy only slightly weakens the link between immigration and the extent of the unobserved economic activity.

The effect of mass legalization on US state-level institutions: Evidence from the immigration reform and control act

A new case for immigration restrictions argues that migrants may transmit low productivity to their destination countries by importing low-quality economic institutions. Using the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) as a natural experiment, we test whether the legalization of undocumented immigrants affects the quality of state-level economic institutions in the United States. Using synthetic control models, we find that, in the short run, legalization may increase the burden of government spending. However, in the long run, we find statistically insignificant effects of legalization on economic institutions.

How the Hart–Celler Act Changed America

How the Hart–Celler Act Changed America Ruth Milkman (bio) The Walls Within: The Politics of Immigration in Modern America by Sarah R. Coleman Princeton University Press, 2021, 272 pp. I vividly remember a conversation I had about fifteen years ago with a first-generation Mexican-American student at UCLA. I was stunned when she mentioned that her parents’ favorite U.S. president, hands down, was Ronald Reagan. Before she was born, she explained, her parents had crossed the border without authorization; they then lived as undocumented immigrants for years, until they got amnesty under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which Reagan signed into law. Later on, they became naturalized U.S. citizens. Despite their nostalgia for the party of Reagan, by the aughts my student had persuaded her parents to switch their political allegiance to the Democrats. This was a decade before Donald Trump’s fiery anti-immigrant rhetoric propelled him into the White House, but already the Republican brand was tethered to restrictive immigration policies, especially in California, home [End Page 141] to the nation’s largest undocumented population. Agricultural and business interests that depended on a steady supply of low-wage immigrant labor were still influential in the California GOP, but their relatively liberal immigration views were increasingly marginalized by other Republicans riding the wave of popular backlash against “illegal aliens.” That backlash was fueled by what political scientists Marisa Abrajano and Zoltan L. Hajnal have called the “immigrant threat narrative”: blaming the growing immigrant population, especially its undocumented segment, for many of the nation’s social and economic woes. In this view, immigrants were “taking jobs” away from American workers. They were overburdening publicly funded healthcare and social services. And they were contributing to rising crime rates. As I argued in Dissent in 2019, however, immigrants very rarely “take jobs” from U.S.-born workers; more often, employers transform once-desirable jobs into problematic ones by eliminating unions, cutting pay, or degrading working conditions, leading U.S.-born workers to reject those jobs and immigrants to be hired in their place. The other claims in the immigrant threat narrative are also inconsistent with the available facts. Yet that narrative steadily gained public traction in the late twentieth century, repeatedly articulated by conservative political voices and amplified in mass media outlets like Fox News. Historian Sarah R. Coleman’s careful study of the dynamics of immigration politics, The Walls Within, exposes both the forces driving the immigrant threat narrative and the shifting political alignments shaping immigration policy in the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s. Coleman argues that alongside better-known controversies over policing the U.S. border, a crucial debate raged about the extent to which noncitizens (whether undocumented or legal immigrants) should be entitled to access the public benefits—healthcare, education, and food stamps—that were available to the U.S.-born population. The Walls Within also highlights the growing involvement of state and local governments in regulating what had long been an exclusively federal domain. Coleman’s account begins with the passage of the 1965 Hart–Celler Act, which defined the fundamental structure of employment- and family-reunification-based immigrant admissions that exists to this day. (She does not explore refugee admissions or the diversity visa program that began in 1990.) Hart–Celler was among the “Great Society” reforms enacted under the Lyndon B. Johnson administration. Because it eliminated the restrictive nationality-based immigration quotas that had prevailed since 1924, the law was widely heralded as an anti-discrimination measure. Yet as Coleman notes, “few of the bill’s supporters or opponents anticipated that the legislation would result in . . . a transformed population of unprecedented diversity.” Indeed, upon signing the bill into law, Johnson confidently declared, “It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives.” He was soon proven wrong. Starting in the 1970s, legal immigration from Asia and Latin America spiked upward, as did unauthorized entries across the U.S.–Mexico border. Indeed, Hart–Celler was the start of what would later be called the “browning” of America, and it quickly sparked a nativist reaction. Alongside the rising anti-immigrant movement, which was bolstered by what Coleman calls an “invasion narrative,” a...

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act as Antecedent to Contemporary Latina/o/x Migration

This essay focuses on a vital question: what can immigrant advocates learn from the history of immigration law and policy reform? The topic is vast, but in this essay, I offer a brief look at one of the most critical pieces of contemporary legislation — the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). I discuss the effects of IRCA on Latina/o/x migration through a historical and critical legal studies lens. First, I discuss the history of immigration law and policy and the important and undeniable intersections between immigration law and formal and informal racial and ethnic discrimination. I provide a brief review of the history prior to the passage of IRCA to understand the political context of its passage and of its effects. The essay then explores the passage of IRCA and its immediate effects on the legalization of millions of previously undocumented immigrants, while also noting the gendered implications of the legalization program. In fact, IRCA helped set the stage for continued gendered discrimination against women migrants by favoring the traditional male workforce in the agricultural industries. Moreover, despite its antithetical purpose, the legalization program resulted in increased rates of undocumented migration from Central America. Next, the essay contextualizes this historical perspective to more contemporary times by noting how IRCA-era migration trends are reflected in more recent numbers of Central American migration and in current political movements to legalize other sectors of undocumented immigrants, like in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and the now-failed Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program. More recently, these trends have influenced increased numbers of undocumented families and children to risk migration to the United States. The essay concludes by commenting on the continuation of these entrenched historical trends.

A PATHWAY TO HOMEOWNERSHIP? EVIDENCE FROM THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986

The impact of legal status on economic outcomes has been well documented in the literature with most research focused on labor market outcomes such as wages and occupational mobility. In this paper, I utilize the exogenous variation created the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 to estimate the effect of amnesty polices on homeownership among undocumented immigrants. Using a regression discontinuity framework, the results suggest that the IRCA increased homeownership rates of eligible immigrants by around 4 percentage points relative to ineligible immigrants. Moreover, an extension to the main analysis suggests that immigrants ineligible for the IRCA adjusted their household formation by increasing the rates of coresidency. (JEL J61, R23, R31)

Legal Status and Local Spending: The Distributional Consequences of the 1986 IRCA

We examine the political response to immigrant legalization and its subsequent impact on the distribution of state and local spending by exploiting variation in legal status arising from the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which legalized 3 million immigrants in the United States. We find that governors, of whatever party affiliation, allocate more per capita resources to counties affected by the IRCA. This effect is amplified when the governor is eligible for re-election, faces political competition, enjoys line-item veto power or is politically aligned with the state legislature, supporting a view that the distributional response is politically motivated. Individuals residing in counties affected by the IRCA tend to vote more in gubernatorial elections and a governor’s likelihood of reelection increases in the share of legalized migrants in a given state. We find no evidence of anti-migrant sentiment confounding our results. Finally, counties that received more transfers because of the IRCA spend more on education and, subsequently, experience improvements in Hispanic high school completion rates, suggesting that the distributional response is targeted to the newly legalized who were eligible to vote five years after legalization. Overall, our work helps understand the role of local public expenditure as a channel linking legal status to a wide range of socio-economic benefits, as documented by the literature.

Bureaucratic institutional design: the case of the Italian NHS

We propose a model where a regional government’s choice of the number of bureaucratic agencies operating in a region depends upon the degree of substitutability and complementarity of the bureaucratic services being demanded. We show that, if the government perceives the citizens’ demand as a demand for substitutable services, it will choose provision by two independent agencies. If the government perceives the citizens’ demand as a demand for complementary services, it will choose provision by a single consolidated agency. Exogenous shocks to the number of citizens amplify these incentives. Evidence from the Italian National Health Service (NHS) supports this hypothesis. Results show a positive effect of proxies of substitutable services on the number of regional local health authorities and a negative effect of proxies of complementary services. The major immigration amnesties, taken as shocks to the number of citizens entitled to the service, magnify these effects.

U.S. Immigration Reform and the Migration Dynamics of Mexican Males

The 1986 US Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was directed at tackling the problem of growing unauthorized migration through legalization of unauthorized immigrants, increasing border security and sanctioning employers who hired unauthorized immigrants. Our paper investigates how the IRCA affected the migration dynamics of male Mexican immigrants focusing on their age of onset of migration and the duration of their first trip. We find that the IRCA reduced unauthorized migration to the US while it does not seem to have had a significant effect on the return rate from the US to Mexico of undocumented male immigrants.

Gendered Consequences: Multigenerational Schooling Effects of IRCA

Prior research has examined the incorporation outcomes among unauthorized migrants after implementation of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). However, few studies have evaluated how legalization opportunities produce gendered outcomes among the second-generation children of unauthorized immigrants. We examine the association of legalization opportunities provided through IRCA with the years of schooling attained by the sons and daughters of Mexican American immigrants. By distinguishing likely eligibility for one of two programs implemented under IRCA—the Legally Authorized Workers and Special Agricultural Workers programs—we consider whether type of legalization program matters by assessing gender differences in schooling among children of Mexican immigrants. Although legalization provides a substantial educational premium for the children of Mexican immigrants regardless of gender, the size of the legalization premium is smaller, on average, for sons than daughters. The advantage to daughters is especially notable among those with parents eligible for the Special Agricultural Workers program. We consider these findings in the context of theories of immigrant incorporation and intergenerational mobility.

U.S. Immigration Reform and the Dynamics of Mexican Migration

The 1986 US Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was directed at tackling the problem of growing unauthorized migration through legalization of unauthorized immigrants, increasing border security and sanctioning employers who hired unauthorized immigrants. Our paper investigates how the IRCA affected the migration dynamics of Mexican immigrants focusing on their age of onset of migration and the duration of their first trip. We find that the IRCA had a positive effect in reducing unauthorized migration to the US. Although primarily aiming at unauthorized immigration, the IRCA had substantial effects on legal migration through its legalization program.

Majority rule vs. minority rights: immigrant representation despite public opposition on the 1986 immigration reform and control act

ABSTRACTWhat explains legislators’ behavior when they are uncertain whether they will be rewarded or punished at re-election? Typically, politicians are incentivized to deliver policies preferred by the majority. Less well understood is what happens when legislators face decisions on issues on which their traditional supporters disagree. Owing to the unavailability of public opinion data for congressional districts, however, studies evaluating competing theories of representation on such issues are scarce. We examine this question by evaluating leading theories of representation on the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), a complex, historically significant, highly salient, and controversial bill that gave citizenship to millions of undocumented immigrants – precisely the type of group that past research suggests should struggle to obtain representation. We employ recent advances in estimating public opinion using multilevel regression and post-stratification to estimate district-level public opinion on IRCA. Contrary to traditional conceptions of subconstituency politics, the results suggest that, under at least some circumstances, traditionally marginalized groups are able to make important policy advances in the face of negative opinion, particularly when they are able to build coalitions that cross party lines and divide their opposition.

U.S. Immigration Reform and the Dynamics of Mexican Migration

The 1986 US Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was directed at tackling the problem of growing unauthorized migration through legalization of unauthorized immigrants, increasing border security and sanctioning employers who hired unauthorized immigrants. Our paper investigates how the IRCA affected the migration dynamics of Mexican immigrants focusing on their age of onset of migration and the duration of their first trip. We find that the IRCA had a positive effect in reducing unauthorized migration to the US. Although primarily aiming at unauthorized immigration, the IRCA had substantial effects on legal migration through its legalization program.

Hard to Believe: The High Cost of a Biometric Identity Card

A quarter century after the last major legalization in the United States, there is much evidence and a growing consensus that our current immigration system is unworkable and in serious need of reform. One of the proposed solutions has been the creation of a Biometric Enrollment, Locally-stored Information, and Electronic Verification of Employment (BELIEVE) card that would be mandatory for anyone — citizen or non-citizen — employed in a U.S. workplace. This plan was initially offered as part of a bi-partisan proposal on comprehensive immigration reform and is likely to be part of future comprehensive reform discussions. This paper analyzes the costs and unintended consequences of such a proposal. Our analysis shows that the BELIEVE system cannot achieve its goal of preventing unauthorized employment. We estimate that establishing a biometric employment card would cost almost $40 billion at the outset, with ongoing maintenance costs of at least $3 billion per year. Requiring all working Americans to get this identity card would fundamentally transform the information demands the United States government places on its citizens. The cards would be unreliable and inadequate to prevent fraud; would lead to privacy violations; and would place undue burdens on the poor. At the same time, the BELIEVE cards would likely be ineffective in targeting the employment of unauthorized migrants. We recommend that rather than spending tens of billions of dollars on an expensive, intrusive and ineffective program, the government examine the root causes of unauthorized migration and employment. In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), touting the new law as a solution to the employment of unauthorized immigrants. More than two decades of experience suggests that IRCA has been unable to prevent the employment of unauthorized workers and policymakers are once again searching for quick fixes. The BELIEVE system is not the answer; it will cost us dearly at a time when we can least afford it.

Legalization and human capital accumulation

This paper presents new evidence regarding the effects of legalization on the training of immigrants who were granted legal status through the US Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. Our findings point to a large increase in the immigrants’ incidence of training relative to comparable groups of natives following legalization. While training gains are higher for males, wage gains are higher for females. We also show that an important part of these changes in labor market outcomes occurs through occupation changes by newly legalized immigrants.

Fiscal Revenues and Commitment in Immigration Amnesties

Immigration amnesties aim at reducing the size of the informal sector and identifying employers of undocumented workers. However, potential fiscal gains are also important: tax revenues are crucial in all kinds of amnesties. Nevertheless, over the last thirty years an average of 24% of all applications have been rejected. It remains an open question as to why governments accept this loss of fiscal base. We argue that applying for amnesty is basically self-incrimination, and that immigration-averse governments have an incentive to use applications as a means to identify and expel illegal workers. In equilibrium only applicants with the highest income are granted amnesty, while the poorest immigrants do not apply, and fiscal revenues remain sub-optimal. We show that electoral accountability can solve the commitment problem. However, the large number of rejections suggests that the strict voter-coordination required by this mechanism is hard to obtain in practice. Therefore immigration amnesties seem doomed to inefficiency.

Self-determination and Intersectionality in the Immigrant Rights Movement

Self-determination and Intersectionality in the Immigrant Rights Movement Betty Hung (bio) If you have come here to help me, you are wasting our time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together. Aboriginal activists group, Queensland, 1970s1 In the past three years, notable victories have been won by the Immigrant Rights Movement, specifically, the Obama Administration’s exercise of executive authority to provide relief from deportation and work authorization to undocumented young people and, more recently announced, also for the undocumented parents of children who are citizens or legal permanent residents (at least for the duration of his presidency). These, arguably, are the most significant positive shifts in a federal immigration policy since 1986 when, under President Ronald Reagan, millions of undocumented immigrants were granted amnesty through the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). How and why did these victories come about? The answer is found in the power and inspiration of self-determination. In recent years, many undocumented youth and their families came out of the shadows to take the helm of a diverse, sometimes fractured, movement. An indisputable moral and strategic authority exists in these experiences, the suffering, and hopes of individuals who are most directly impacted. Instead of allowing others to speak for them, these undocumented immigrants—not just Latino, but also Asian, Pacific Islander, African, Afro-Caribbean, and White or European origin undocumented immigrants—have increasingly spoken for themselves. Moreover, in coming out as “undocumented and unafraid,” many have also simultaneously come out as “queer and unashamed.” This profound shift, grounded in self-determination and respect for the intersectionality of identities and experiences, has led to certain policy victories and an opening in the hearts and minds of society, which would have seemed unimaginable just a few years ago. The following critical lessons have great importance for the future of the Immigrant Rights Movement. Now, in looking ahead to the continuing and ongoing struggle for full equality and justice, important strategies must be adopted: Stay grounded A moral and strategic center where respect for the leadership and self-determination of directly impacted individuals is a fundamental guiding principle that also holds accountable allies and other players. The mantra “nothing about us without us,” proclaimed by undocumented youth, encapsulates this concept that immigrants who experience the brunt of the broken immigration system should be at the forefront of the movement, not just in sharing their stories, but in leadership strategizing, organizing, advocating, and decision making. Ensure support of allies Proactively support the leadership of directly impacted immigrants in a manner that respects and defers to their agency and self-determination.2 This includes allies stepping back and not purporting to speak for undocumented immigrants. When media and public speaking opportunities arise, allies should defer to affected immigrants to speak for themselves. Negotiations and demands should be made by immigrants who are directly impacted, whose lives are at stake. Challenge false dichotomies Remove and erase the dichotomy of “good immigrants” and “bad immigrants” in order to reshape the narrative of who is “worthy” of inclusion in the American democracy. Some immigrant rights advocates have fallen into a trap of trying to prove the value and worth of “good immigrants,” effectively conveying that others are appropriately excluded from full societal integration. By [End Page 159] supporting the human dignity of all immigrants, we can win more significant victories that are capable of changing not just laws and policies, but also hearts and minds. Address the root causes of migration This involves understanding why immigrants and refugees from all over the world are forced to migrate to the U.S., due to foreign, economic, and trade policies that make it untenable to remain in their native countries. Practice intersectional consciousness Value and practice intersectional consciousness and solidarity that recognizes that the liberation of one is tied to the liberation of all. By honoring the complexity of each human being, the practice of intersectionality holds promise for building true solidarity among communities. Connecting parts of oneself—race, gender, immigration status, sexuality, class, and other facets of identity—opens a window into connecting communities, in boundary-crossing...

The Border Thickens: In‐Securing Communities after IRCA

AbstractThis article analyses a certain ‘thickening of the border,’ a term I coin to underscore a certain blurring of the insides and the outsides of the United States with respect to Latin American, primarily Mexican, immigration. In making this intervention, the article underscores the linkages among a dark legacy of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), the militarization of Border Patrol policing practices in the southwestern United States, and “Secure Communities,” a mammoth immigration policing program across much of the United States.

Effects of Immigrant Legalization on Crime

I examine the effects that the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which legalized almost 3 million immigrants, had on crime in the United States. I exploit the IRCA's quasi-random timing as well as geographic variation in the intensity of treatment to isolate causal impacts. I find decreases in crime of 3-5 percent, primarily due to decline in property crimes, equivalent to 120,000-180,000 fewer violent and property crimes committed each year due to legalization. I calibrate a labor market model of crime, finding that much of the drop in crime can be explained by greater labor market opportunities among applicants.

Illegal Immigration: Policy Perspectives and Challenges

The combination of increasing immigration pressures and restrictive policies imperfectly enforced by many destination countries has made illegal immigration widespread. This paper provides an overview of the mechanisms behind the formation of migration policies and how they lead to or they limit the presence of illegal immigrants. We also study how governments deal ex-post with the presence of undocumented foreign workers by introducing immigration amnesties. We review the determinants of their introduction and address their desirability from the point of view of aggregate welfare. As countries in the EU differ substantially in the implementation of both ex-ante and ex-post immigration policies, we emphasize the need for more coordination in the area of migration policy enforcement, both at the border and within each country.