Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), also Simpson-Mazzoli Act (Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, signed by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986) is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. The Act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants (immigrants who do not possess lawful work authorization), required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously. The Act also granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982.[1]
Contents
1 Legislative background and description
2 Effect upon the labor market
3 References
Legislative background and description
Romano L. Mazzoli was a Democratic representative from Kentucky and Alan K. Simpson was a Republican senator from Wyoming who chaired their respective immigration subcommittees in Congress. Their effort was assisted by the recommendations of the bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, then President of the University of Notre Dame. The law criminalized the act of knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant and established financial and other penalties for those employing illegal aliens under the theory that low prospects for employment would reduce illegal immigration. It introduced the I-9 form to ensure that all employees presented documentary proof of their legal eligibility to accept employment in the United States.
These sanctions would only apply to employers that had more than three employees and that did not make a sufficient effort to determine the legal status of their workers.
The first Simpson-Mazzoli Bill was reported out of the House of Senate Judiciary Committees. The bill failed to be received by the House, however, where civil rights advocates were concerned over the potential for abuse and discrimination against Hispanics, growers' groups rallied for additional provisions for foreign labor, and the Chamber of Commerce persistently opposed sanctions against employers.
The second Simpson-Mazzoli Bill finally passed both houses in 1985, but it came apart in the conference committee over the issue of cost. This year marked an important turning point for the reform effort. First, employer opposition to employer sanctions began to subside, placated at least in part by the "affirmative defense" clause in the law which explicitly releases employers from any obligation to check the authenticity of documents presented to them. Second, agricultural employers shifted their focus from opposition to employer sanctions to a concerted campaign to secure alternative sources of foreign labor. As opposition to employer sanctions waned and growers' lobbying efforts for extensive temporary worker programs intensified, agricultural worker programs began to outrank employer sanctions component as the most controversial element of reform.
The following year, Senator Simpson reintroduced the bill that Congressional opponents were now calling "The Monster from the Blue Lagoon". By September, this Senate version had already passed.
Effect upon the labor market
According to one study, the IRCA caused some employers to discriminate against workers who appeared foreign, resulting in a small reduction in overall Hispanic employment.[2] Another study stated that if hired, wages were being lowered to compensate employers for the perceived risk of hiring foreigners.[3]
The hiring process also changed as employers turned to indirect hiring through subcontractors. "Under a subcontracting agreement, a U.S. citizen or resident alien contractually agrees with an employer to provide a specific number of workers for a certain period of time to undertake a defined task at a fixed rate of pay per worker".[3] "By using a subcontractor the firm is not held liable since the workers are not employees. The use of a subcontractor decreases a worker's wages since a portion is kept by the subcontractor. This indirect hiring is imposed on everyone regardless of legality".[3]
References
^ Coutin, Susan Bibler. 2007. Nation of Emigrants. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. pg 179
^ Lowell, Lindsay; Jay Teachman; Zhongren Jing (November 1995). "Unintended Consequences of Immigration Reform: Discrimination and Hispanic Employment". Demography 32 (4): 617–628. doi:10.2307/2061678. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-3370%28199511%2932%3A4%3C617%3AUCOIRD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P. Retrieved 2007-11-29.
^ a b c Massey, Douglas S. (2007). "Chapter 4: Building a Better Underclass". Categorically Unequal: The American Stratification System. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. pp. 143–145.
If you would like to read the law (that is more than our representatives do).
https://www.oig.lsc.gov/legis/irca86.htm
I warned everyone right after the healthcare reform bill passed that immigration would propel itself to the forefront of the political agenda, back on March 20, 2010. Arizona passed a immigration law a few days ago to halt the incredible illegal border crossing in the state of Arizona. Why Arizona, California and Texas have partial fences built by the government and Arzona is the easiest place for illegals to cross. Just a month ago, A rancher from Arizona was murdered alledgedly by illegals. He had reported that if the law didn't do something, he was in extreme danger. He is dead now. The violence between drug cartels has exploded where Arizona representatives and the Governor felt they had to do something. Obviously, this administration is not going to stop illegal immigration. This is the biggest faliure of the federal government in 24 years. Obama's administration will attempt to legalize the estimated 12 million illegals to sure up his voting base. The United States of America is a nation of laws, a republic. The law stated above, makes it illegal to be in the United States of America without written permission of the government. Like so many of our laws, the government does not enforce this particular law. The main responsibility of the federal government is to provide national security for the citizens of the United States of America. They failed miserably on this law, making it easy for illegal immigrants, drug dealers, people smugglers, weapons runners and possible terrorists to enter our sovereign shores and borders. The administration is more concerned about our salt intake than our national security. I think Governor Jan Brewer is couragious for signing this bill into law. Quite frankly, she had to. Arizona is going broke. Proponents of illegal immigrants always exploit how hard working and they are tax paying "undocumented workers," however, you don't hear about how much money and resources it costs the federal government, state governments and local municipalities and they are running huge deficits because of illegal aliens.
" Illegal immigrants collectively represent a group that is a significant menace to the public. 80% have committed serious crimes in addition to immigration violations, and 40% have violent crime histories."
(Center for Immigration Studies).
A friend of mine, a few years back, told me that on any given day in Los Angeles, you could see at least five very pregnant, hispanic women standing outside a LA county hospital waiting to go into labor. Who pays for that, I wonder. I don't want to sound like a xenophobe, however, when someone crosses our border illegally with intent to stay in our country, they have immediately broken our laws. Ironically, Mexico is so much more stringent with immigration laws than the United States. I guess we have to make a decision, will we become a sanctuary country for all illegal immigrants to call home or do we make a stand and start enforcing our laws and take back America. Most people I speak with in the last 4 months, think the country is headed for socialism and in the wrong direction. This is why we see such an uprising with Americans joining groups like the Tea Party organizations. We are seriously fed up with the Fed. As Americans, we will fight any amnesty programs that allows illegal aliens to circumvent our laws and become 12 million more entitlement recipients and take jobs away from Americans. And what about the foreigners that are following the law and trying to enter the U.S. legally?
We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state in Washington.
What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?
He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.
Patrick J. Buchanan
We can not be everything to everyone. We are in financial dire straits. Hard decisions will have to be made. I can't wait to see the emails I get about this post. Preserve our sovereignty.
Obama criticizes Arizona Immigration Law:
Assault by a immigration protester:
AZ Governor Jan Brewer on Immigration Law:
Potty mouth of the week:
Senator Levin, you are very professional.
Surprise of the week!
Obama plays “race card” in call for 2010 elections?
by Ed Morrissey
posted at 11:36 am on April 26, 2010
Ben Smith at Politico goes with a less-provocative description of “unusual demographic frankness” in describing this effort from the DNC to get the troops rallied for the midterm elections. Both descriptions seem more ironic after watching this wan, mailed-in effort from Barack Obama that reminds one more of his video extolling Martha Coakley’s virtues to skeptical Massachusetts voters:
The Democratic National Committee this morning released this clip of the president rallying the troops, if rather coolly, for 2010. Obama’s express goal: “reconnecting” with the voters who voted for the first time in 2008, but who may not plan to vote in the lower-profile Congressional elections this year.
Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”
Well, at least we know who the DNC doesn’t want around in the midterms by subtraction: older white and Asian men. At least, that’s a fair interpretation of the President’s otherwise dull speech to the faithful.
It’s not exactly playing a “race card,” which usually means some claim of either victimization or super-credibility for a particular argument, but it’s a little more frank than usual about the motives of political organizations. No one doubts that both parties approach electoral politics on the basis of demographics; both Democrats and Republicans make quite a show of it, especially when talking to groups that find their basis on ethnicity or religion. What they normally don’t do is frame it in such an exclusionary way as Obama does in this video. Is this election really dependent on overwhelming the demographics that he leaves out of his appeal?
In a word, yes. Obama won’t top this ticket, and with his approval ratings heading steadily south, it’s questionable whether he would help or hurt the national Democratic ticket anyway. As Smith notes, he needs that surge from 2008 to reappear this year, but Obama’s really addressing the wrong groups if he wants that to happen. His big problem is that independents have peeled away from the Democrats — and this isn’t exactly the way to bring them back into the fold.
Race card up his sleeve:
Daft statement of the day:
"Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant." (Are you kidding me. Duh!)
MSNBC's Anchor Contessa Brewer
2 Comico:
Breaking: Dems Hid Damning Health Care Report From Public Until a Month After Vote!
by Jim Hoft
More hope and change–
A damning health care report generated by actuaries at the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department was given to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the health care vote. She hid the report from the public until a month after democrats rammed their nationalized health care bill through Congress.
The results from the report were troubling. The report released by Medicare and Medicaid actuaries shows that medical costs will skyrocket rising $389 billion 10 years. 14 million will lose their employer-based coverage. Millions of Americans will be left without insurance. And, millions more may be dumped into the already overwhelmed Medicaid system. 4 million American families will be hit with tax penalties under this new law.
Of course, these were ALL things that President Obama and Democratic leaders assured us would not happen.
Who would have thunk it?:
Quote du jour:
Never spend your money before you have it.
Thomas Jefferson
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
Federalist No. 45
The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
For the Independent Journal.
Author: James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
HAVING shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States. The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be,
Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale. We have seen, in all the examples of ancient and modern confederacies, the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members, to despoil the general government of its authorities, with a very ineffectual capacity in the latter to defend itself against the encroachments. Although, in most of these examples, the system has been so dissimilar from that under consideration as greatly to weaken any inference concerning the latter from the fate of the former, yet, as the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty, the inference ought not to be wholly disregarded. In the Achaean league it is probable that the federal head had a degree and species of power, which gave it a considerable likeness to the government framed by the convention. The Lycian Confederacy, as far as its principles and form are transmitted, must have borne a still greater analogy to it. Yet history does not inform us that either of them ever degenerated, or tended to degenerate, into one consolidated government. On the contrary, we know that the ruin of one of them proceeded from the incapacity of the federal authority to prevent the dissensions, and finally the disunion, of the subordinate authorities. These cases are the more worthy of our attention, as the external causes by which the component parts were pressed together were much more numerous and powerful than in our case; and consequently less powerful ligaments within would be sufficient to bind the members to the head, and to each other. In the feudal system, we have seen a similar propensity exemplified. Notwithstanding the want of proper sympathy in every instance between the local sovereigns and the people, and the sympathy in some instances between the general sovereign and the latter, it usually happened that the local sovereigns prevailed in the rivalship for encroachments.
Had no external dangers enforced internal harmony and subordination, and particularly, had the local sovereigns possessed the affections of the people, the great kingdoms in Europe would at this time consist of as many independent princes as there were formerly feudatory barons. The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other. The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members. The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States.
There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed, and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people, must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system. Compare the members of the three great departments of the thirteen States, excluding from the judiciary department the justices of peace, with the members of the corresponding departments of the single government of the Union; compare the militia officers of three millions of people with the military and marine officers of any establishment which is within the compass of probability, or, I may add, of possibility, and in this view alone, we may pronounce the advantage of the States to be decisive. If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side.
It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union.
Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale.
Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them. The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them. Had the States complied punctually with the articles of Confederation, or could their compliance have been enforced by as peaceable means as may be used with success towards single persons, our past experience is very far from countenancing an opinion, that the State governments would have lost their constitutional powers, and have gradually undergone an entire consolidation. To maintain that such an event would have ensued, would be to say at once, that the existence of the State governments is incompatible with any system whatever that accomplishes the essential purposes of the Union.
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.biggovernment.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/
http://www.msnbc.com/
Patrick J. Buchanan
Ed Morrissey
http://www.youtube.com/
Jim Holt
http://www.quotationspage.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
Washington Post
Wikipedia
No comments:
Post a Comment