Talk:Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 June 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rusty728.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old comment

The Government has ignored for many years the problem of employing illegal immigrants. How can we fix this problem? Who should be let stay in the country, how much should fines be, etc.?

Sorry, this isn't a forum to discuss the problems of the world. These talk pages are only here to discuss our articles. -Will Beback 21:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Verify! JdelaF (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty

Where's the information about the amnesty granted to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants? Wasn't that a MAJOR part of the legislation? 146.163.42.164 (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC) That was indeed the (not "a") major effect of the legislation - amnesty for millions of illegals, thus encouraging many millions more. But the people who control wikipedia are not interested in such things - they are more interested in talking about "racism" or whatever.90.211.148.239 (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Seems as if many Wiki articles leave out the really interesting continuing controversies that are key to understanding. JdelaF (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JdelaF Then please add them! Alexysun (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not just from Mexico

This law was created to address illegal immigration, not just Mexican illegal immigration.

--66.19.235.205 00:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an add on to this article that discusses the failure of the enforcement mechanism. what this has led to is a large undercurrent of political pressure against "amnesty" - more or less, never again

Hear! Hear! JdelaF (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to improve the article

I have tried to Wikify this article; mainly, I created categories (especially "See also:" and "External links:"). I can't believe this article (about a Federal law) had no External links. Amazing! Anyway--hope you appreciate the work. User:ProfessorPaul 04:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do! JdelaF (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This part doesn't make any sense

"The GAO found discrimination in 10% of cases studied, and the employment sanctions were not repealed. Although they were repealed they were not indeed replaced."

Were the sanctions repealed or not? What's the second sentence trying to say? I lack the knowledge to fix this, so could someone who knows what happened correct this? Juru 17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self Contradiction

The Legal rationale section seems to contradict itself by saying that the employment sanctions were not repealed, but then in the next sentence goes on to say that they were indeed repealed but not replaced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjoiram (talk • contribs) 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It appears that the article no longer makes that claim, so I'm removing the self-contradiction tag. - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 00:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1990?

How does this differ from the IRCA of 1990? Or is there even such a thing? Dan 19:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omissions

This page should mention the fact that the law basically had no impact in terms of decreasing the incidence of illegal immigrants working in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daugavpiliete (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The IRCA amnesty has been tied to terrorism. Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was legalized as a seasonal agricultural worker as part of the 1986 IRCA amnesty. This allowed him to travel abroad, including several trips to Afghanistan, where he received terrorist training." Link:https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/seven-amnesties-passed-congress.html

Biased

I would suggest this is a mostly useless article, and one of the most politically biased I've seen on wiki - which is saying a lot. I would suggest it needs a complete rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.159.34 (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Reagan

1986, wasn't Ronald Reagan our President? Why did he sign a law allowing illegal immigrants to violate our borders and break our laws and take all our jobs away? Who was Reagan working for? He was a former union president, was he a Manchurian Candidate for foreign socialist gay labor thugs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.120.138 (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the above, the story I heard was that the Demorats were supposed to step up securtiy on the boarder but they finked on that. There should be mention of that in the article. --68.118.201.68 (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The great Irony being almost EVERY single immigration "reform" bill after this one always "promised" to enforce Border Security. Yet the Democrat Party makes it clear it will never, in good faith keep its promises. Still the Republican Party keeps acting like it can trust any promises from that party. No, the GOP knows better, it's selling out it's voters plain and simple, has been since the 60's. The unaswered question is WHY?2603:7080:CB3F:5032:B93F:6A0F:CDA2:CB52 (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back taxes?

A few years ago (20:17, 4 December 2012‎), user Compx2 edited in "and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt." I suspect he is confusing the then-current attempts at immigration reform with the 1986 bill. Skimming the text of the bill, I see nothing about "back taxes" and mention of "fine" primarily references fines against employers only.

This should be supported with a citation or removed.

Z McFate (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

When this says that the illegals were legalized, does that mean they were actually made US citizens or what?--Reversalmushroom (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No -- but in some cases it made them elegible to apply for citizenship, if they should choose to pursue it. AnonMoos (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add this study on the crime impact of IRCA?

This[1]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kennedy's Nay Vote

Greetings. I'm not sure this justifies a section in the article, but after taking an interest in Kennedy's nay vote on the bill after giving some public support of the bill initially, I emailed the Edward M Kennedy Institute and received a wonderful response I thought should be stored publicly somewhere relevant:

Senator Kennedy worked closely with Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) to shape the initial reform that ultimately became the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Senator Kennedy supported many parts of the bill, but did not support provisions relating to "employer sanctions."

Prior to the 1986 law, there was no law that prohibited the hiring of unauthorized aliens. A large part of the debate and crafting of the 1986 bill was to make hiring unauthorized aliens illegal (this had been a serious discussion in Congress since about 1973, when legislative proposals of this type began being introduced with some regularity). The final version of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made the known hiring of unauthorized aliens illegal with sanctions or penalties against the employer.

This part of the bill is relevant to Senator Kennedy's position, because some members of the House and Senate took the position that the new employer sanctions may lead to discrimination in hiring against legal immigrants and/or American Citizens (particularly American Citizens of Hispanic ancestry). Senator Kennedy joined those who believed that the employment sanctions provision could lead to an employer bias (discrimination) against Americans of Hispanic ancestry. This was the primary reason Senator Kennedy gave for voting against the bill.

In a October 16, 1986 speech to the Senate, Senator Kennedy said:

"If one thing is clear in the history of immigration laws, it is whenever Congress enacts a measure with any potential discrimination, the full potential is relentlessly realized and virulent discrimination results."

So, for the inquiry there are 3 items, I've put together:

The link to Senator Kennedy's Speech can be found by consulting the Congressional Record for October 16, 1986 <https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1986/10/16/senate-section>

An attached image file of the October 16, 1986 Congressional Record with Senator Kennedy's statement marked <https://imgur.com/04dK7RR ; ping me if link dead and I'll provide another copy>

A link to an Edward M. Kennedy Oral History Project interview with Senator Kennedy on the topic of immigration <http://web1.millercenter.org/poh/transcripts/ohp_2007_1008_kennedy.pdf>

71.79.20.239 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]