| Acronym | IRCA |
|---|---|
| Colloquial name(s) | Simpson–Mazzoli Act |
| Enacted by the | 99th United States Congress |
| Citations | |
| Public Law | Pub.L. 99-603 |
| Stat. | 100 Stat. 3359 |
| Codification | |
|
|
| Major amendments | |
| Relevant Supreme Court cases | |
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, enacted November 6, 1986, also Simpson-Mazzoli Act, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law.
In brief the act:[1]
Contents |
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 immigrants under the theory that low prospects for employment would reduce undocumented 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 apply only to employers that had more than three employees and 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 and Senate Judiciary Committees. The bill failed to be received by the House, but 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 U.S. 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. The year marked an important turning point for the reform effort. Employer opposition to employer sanctions began to subside, partly because of the "affirmative defense" clause in the law that explicitly released employers from any obligation to check the authenticity of workers' documents.
Also, 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, Sen. Simpson reintroduced the bill that Congressional opponents were now calling 'The Monster from the Blue Lagoon' because of its eerie ability to rise from the dead. By September, this Senate version had already passed...."[2]
The act was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. An estimated 3 million illegal aliens received amnesty under the act. A May 26, 2006 New York Times article arrived at the figure 2.8 million: 1.7 million under a general amnesty, plus 90% of the 1.3 million that applied under a special program for agricultural workers.[1]
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. There is no statistical evidence that a reduction in employment correlated to unemployment in the economy as a whole or was separate from the general unemployment population statistics.[3] Another study stated that if hired, wages were being lowered to compensate employers for the perceived risk of hiring foreigners.[4]
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".[4] "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".[4]