Was the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Act a good piece of legislation?
General Reference (not clearly pro or con)
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which became Public Law No: 99-603 on Nov. 6, 1986, among other orders, primarily dictates:
"-- The Attorney General shall adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence if the alien meets the following requirements: [...] IN GENERAL. -- The alien must establish that he entered the United States before January 1, 1982, and that he has resided continuously in the United States in an unlawful status since such date and through the date the application is filed under this subsection. [...] -- In the case of an alien who entered the United States as a nonimmigrant before January 1, 1982, the alien must establish that the alien's period of authorized stay as a nonimmigrant expired before such date through the passage of time or the alien's unlawful status was known to the Government as of such date."
Was the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Act a good piece of legislation?
PRO (yes)
CON (no)
Romano L. Mazzoli, JD, former U.S. House Representative (D-KY), and Alan K. Simpson, JD, former U.S. Senator (R-WY), in a Sep. 15, 2006 Washington Post article entitled "Enacting Immigration Reform, Again," explained:
"The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act - IRCA, or the Simpson-Mazzoli bill - is referred to frequently in today's high-decibel immigration debates - and rarely affectionately. As co-authors of that legislation, we think honest perspective is in order... We quickly realized that if immigration reform was to work and be fair it had to be a 'three-legged stool.' If one leg failed, so would the entire bill. 'Leg one' was improved security against illegal crossings at the border with Mexico... For the first time in U. S. history, we imposed penalties on employers who knowingly hired undocumented workers. 'Leg two' was the H-2A temporary worker program for agricultural workers. 'Leg three' was what we called 'legalization.' We would allow some, but not all, undocumented aliens then living and working here to regularize their unlawful status and begin the long process to earn temporary residency and, eventually, if they chose to continue, to earn permanent residency and citizenship.
Since illegal immigration continues nearly unabated today, legitimate questions can be raised about the effectiveness of IRCA. Although we do have pride of authorship, we also believe that the shortcomings of the act are not due to design failure but rather to the failure of both Democratic and Republican administrations since 1986 to execute the law properly. From 1981, when our bill was introduced, to 1986, when it became law, we were aided by the expertise of hundreds of policy experts, scholars and advocates. Our comprehensive bill was crafted to curtail illegal immigration, to provide personnel for labor-scarce markets and to give the most worthy of our illegal population a chance to earn legal status. The foundation of IRCA was enforcement and border security, but to work, it required consistent funding... After two decades, the system is still not in place... We believe that our three-legged-stool approach is still relevant and workable if carried out vigorously."
The New York Times, in a Mar. 18, 1982 editorial titled "Not Nativist, Not Racist, Not Mean," presented the following:
"As a general proposition, the Simpson-Mazzoli bill is at once tough, fair and humane... The United States cannot conceivably let in all the worldwide millions who want in. That means controlling our own borders and that in turn, means something called employer sanctions. Federal law must forbid hiring illegal immigrants and also provide employers with a way to identify who they are. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill would do both. Without being specific, it calls for the gradual development of a limited, reasonable process of identification."
James Sensenbrenner, JD, U.S. House Representative (R-WI), in a May 28, 2006 MSNBC "Meet the Press with Tim Russert" debate, stated:
"I’m afraid that the amnesty —and that’s what it is— that’s proposed in the Senate bill [S. 2611] and the way it’s proposed is going to result in huge document fraud just like there was when amnesty was passed 20 years ago in the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill, which failed so miserably that we have a problem that’s out of control now... President Bush and my, with all due respect, my colleagues in the Senate don’t get the fact that Simpson-Mazzoli failed miserably 20 years ago. This bill [S. 2611] is a repeat of Simpson-Mazzoli...
I was in Congress when the Simpson-Mazzoli bill was passed. I voted against it. We have the problem today not because we deferred the problem, it’s because Congress made a mistake in passing Simpson-Mazzoli. And those who supported it, including former Senator Simpson, said that the Simpson-Mazzoli bill has given us the difficulty that we’re in."
Doris Meissner, MA, former Commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, in a Nov. 10, 2005 essay from The American Prospect entitled "Learning From History As Congress Seeks a Comprehensive Immigration Fix, the Lessons of 1986’s Historic Reform Must Guide the Way," offered the following:
"As the temperature surrounding immigration issues rises, let’s remember that our political system walked this road 20 years ago during the debate that led to the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. In its attempt to tackle illegal immigration, Congress struck a deal in which border control and employer responsibility were combined with amnesty. [...] The Simpson-Mazzoli bill is best known for its core elements of employer sanctions, border enforcement, and legalization. [...] But the deal disintegrated in practice.
Today’s conventional wisdom is that IRCA failed and the immigration system is badly broken. With at least 10 million people in the country unauthorized to be here, more than double the number when IRCA passed, that judgment is not surprising. Yet the solutions being advanced now are fundamentally those that were debated in the early ’80s and before, and that ultimately became IRCA."