Debate over amnesty looms over efforts to reform immigration laws
In 1986, lawmakers decided the problem of illegal immigration had to be dealt with. More than 3 million people were living in the United States after crossing the border illegally or overstaying their visas.
A new law signed by President Ronald Reagan gave legal status and a path to citizenship to most of those unauthorized residents — helping many secure a slice of the American dream but also giving fuel to critics who sought to turn “amnesty” into a pejorative.
Less than 30 years later, the number of immigrants living in the country illegally is thought to have nearly quadrupled, and the freighted baggage of amnesty looms over new efforts to reform the nation’s immigration laws.
With four times as many people potentially eligible, today’s mass legalization would occur on a much larger scale. The specifics of the current proposal are different, the global economy is different, and the immigrants themselves are different, hailing from South Korea as well as Mexico and fanning out from traditional enclaves like Los Angeles to populate small towns across America.
Still, the reams of post-1986 studies offer an indication of what might happen if millions of immigrants receive legal status. And there is broad agreement on one thing: The flow of illegal immigration must somehow be stanched, so there is never a need for an amnesty again. In that respect, 1986 was an utter failure.
“The goal’s got to be that people come with visas, not with smugglers, that they come for jobs that we need people to come fill,” said Angela Maria Kelley, an immigration policy expert with the pro-reform Center for American Progress.
The 855-page Senate bill, currently in committee, contains a path to citizenship taking at least 13 years, with provisional status to be granted almost immediately to those who were in the country before 2012. Proponents avoid calling it amnesty, even as they tout the moral imperative of bringing 11 million people out of the shadows. Opponents wield the word as a weapon, decrying amnesty as a free pass to lawbreakers that should not have been doled out in 1986, nor again in 2013.
Both camps trot out economic projections. Higher immigrant wages will pad tax coffers and boost the domestic product by billions of dollars, one argument goes. Opponents predict a drain on public funds as newly legalized immigrants apply for government benefits, and harm to American workers as immigrants get better jobs.
“After legalization, they’ll be eligible for virtually every job in the country,” said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the anti-legalization Federation for American Immigration Reform. “People whose jobs are not threatened right now will find themselves in competition with these workers.”
Juan Manuel Niebla arrived in Los Angeles in 1976 with a third-grade education and a dollar in his pocket. He found a job at a factory, where his salary was many times the $5 a day he made as a construction worker in Mexico. He raised a family, learned English and bought a house, all while living in the country illegally.
For Niebla, the 1986 amnesty meant freedom from fear. He no longer had to worry about being deported if he was pulled over while driving to work. He was finally able to visit his parents in Mexico.
Initially, he stayed at the same job, working his way up from machine operator to supervisor. Then, his boss ordered him to accept a pay cut or be laid off. Niebla chose the latter, knowing that as a U.S. citizen, he could tide himself over with unemployment benefits. He immediately found work as a landscaper with the city of Los Angeles, where he now makes $24 an hour and looks forward to a pension when he retires.
“This country is for everybody, especially if they’re hardworking, honest people,” said Niebla, 63, of Highland Park. “I have everything — good health, a good job.”
James P. Smith, a labor market expert at Rand Corp., believes that legalizing the 11 million unauthorized immigrants — 1 in 4 of whom live in California — is the right thing to do.
But unless the new legislation succeeds in stopping illegal immigration through a combination of more work visas, border security and workplace enforcement, the cycle may repeat. A new generation of illegal border crossers and over-stayers may find inspiration in stories like Niebla’s.
“The very fact that it was successful in that way was a signal that this will happen again, that this is the American solution to the immigration problem, legalizing those who are here and dealing with it again 15, 20 years in the future,” Smith said of the 1986 amnesty.
Many studies have found that wages increased for amnesty recipients as a group — as much as 15% in the first five years, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. If immigrants earn more, they will spend more and pay more taxes, potentially creating more jobs.
“It’s the freedom to say, ‘I can do this, and I’m free to do that,’” said Antonia Hernandez, who was head of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund at the time. “By that same token, it was the employers knowing that was the case and treating employees differently.”
According to the Center for American Progress, the lengthy path to citizenship outlined by the Senate bill could add 121,000 jobs per year and inject $832 billion into the economy over the next decade. Legalized immigrants would pay billions more in local, state and federal taxes on top of what they already pay, according to the center’s estimates.
Others counter that newly legalized immigrants could be a huge drain on Social Security, Medicare, food stamps and other government programs. A study last week by the conservative Heritage Foundation showed that a mass legalization could cost the government $6 trillion over the immigrants’ lifetimes. It came under fire from both Republicans and Democrats, and a co-author quit after his earlier assertions questioning immigrants’ intelligence surfaced.
Still, other research suggests that immigrants as a group may use more government services than they pay in taxes, since they are more likely to be low-income and have more children in public schools than native-born families.
Under the Senate proposal, immigrants would stay in provisional status for at least 10 years, remaining ineligible for most federal benefits, including subsidized health insurance, during that time.
With improved job prospects, legalized immigrants may be less likely to commit crimes. At the same time, a Cornell University study suggests that some immigrants who were ineligible for the 1986 amnesty resorted to crimes like burglary because they were increasingly shut out of the labor market.
The better immigrants do, the more likely they are to take jobs that U.S. workers would want. But some researchers believe the post-1986 job gains were confined to the relatively small number of amnesty recipients who were well-educated and spoke good English, and that few U.S. workers want to be farmworkers, house cleaners or busboys.
“I don’t think this legalization is going to be a switch flipper and dramatically grow the size of the economy or improve things for the workers or the American economy in general really quickly,” said Laura Hill, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. “Granting legal status isn’t going to suddenly make for a new group of competitors in the labor force. They’re already here, and they’re already maximizing their earning potential in terms of their skill sets.”
Niebla became a U.S. citizen in 1996 and has voted in just about every election since then, including a recent Los Angeles municipal contest that drew a dismal 21% turnout.
Ana Etelvina Villalobos never misses an election, either. She came to Los Angeles in the early 1980s to escape the civil war in her native El Salvador, raising her daughters as a single mother. When she got her papers, she was working as a cook on a food truck. She later became a housekeeper for Hollywood celebrities and earned a college degree in accounting.
“Now, I’m at liberty to go everywhere without the fear you have when you don’t have papers,” said Villalobos, 56. “I’m not afraid to fight for my rights, to travel.”
Niebla and Villalobos may be more the exception than the rule. By 2010, about 40% of amnesty recipients, or 1.1 million people, had become U.S. citizens, according to a federal study. The legalized immigrants faced the same obstacles as other green card holders who delay citizenship: a steep application fee, lack of English, and not enough time or knowledge to navigate the process.
In November, Latinos and Asian Americans put immigration reform on the national agenda by overwhelmingly supporting President Obama. Despite the low naturalization rates, some researchers believe the 1986 amnesty added enough voters to be a major factor in that result, 26 years later. The future political effect of a much larger cohort is unknown.
“All we know is that this is going to alter society in innumerable ways,” said Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute, who is an expert on the 1986 law. “If 11.2 million new people enter the body politic, that has to shake it. What it will do to political parties, we don’t know. What it will do to local elections, we don’t know.”
The stories shaping California
Get up to speed with our Essential California newsletter, sent six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.