What Went Wrong—and Right—with Reagan’s “Amnesty”
Tagged with: amnesty • border security • Bush • Democrats • employer sanctions • forgiveness • illegal immigration • Immigration Reform and Control Act • IRCA • Obama • Republicans • Ronald Reagan
Matt, how would you respond if one of your clients asked you what kind of fine American politicians, American employers, and American consumers, will pay as part of immigration reform?
American politicians have written laws that are impossible to enforce and then have failed to enforce them – resulting, as you have said, in “a winking signal that our society did not really mean those laws.” American employers and consumers have enjoyed the labor of workers on whose behalf they refused to wield their political power.
What have been the legal consequences to American politicans, employers, and consumers of allowing, entering into and enjoying the fruits of illegal labor contracts? Very few consequences at all.
The hiring employers – those who more often than not have legal status, insider status and relative wealth – as well as the consumers of that labor (American eaters of vegetables, home dwellers, etc.) are treated like the 58mph motorist. But the hired employees are treated much worse.
Setting up a legal system in which we are all forced to operate that way – the status quo, that is – is indeed disrespectful to the law and to the values that are supposed to inform the law, like justice.
So a fix is necessary, but one that corrects the imbalance of consequences to those who have entered into and benefited from the illegal labor agreements.
You wouldn’t want the new system to require that only certain people – the undesirables, the least of these, maybe? – pay to get right with the law. That can’t be respectful of the law.
But in the broader debate, and even here in your post, debating whether or not “amnesty” is a good idea is always about whether “they” should get amnesty. The dialogue always assumes that following immigration reform all or nearly all insider/resourceful employers will get away scot free for all previous illegal employment relationships – or am I wrong? And consumers, of course, who watched and complained about foreign languages being spoken by the crews who built their homes, prepared and served their food, cleaned their homes and offices, and kept their grounds, will also get off scot free after immigration reform. But we insist that the person who signed the other end of the labor agreement – the outsider/poor employee – be the one to demonstrate “respect for the law” by either hitting the highway out of town or being shaken upside-down as we ask them to “earn” what we have freely given ourselves.
How respectful of the law – or of justice – is that?
Very compelling points, John. To be honest, I think the only reason I can give you that the other actors involved and complicit in our broken immigration system beyond undocumented immigrants–employers, our government, and consumers like you and me–should not also be fined in order to demonstrate a respect for the rule of law is that we would never get a bill passed with such provisions. I can’t really argue with the morality and justice of your argument, only with its likelihood of ever becoming reality in our current (or near-term future) political climate.
I’m very much looking forward to your guest blog here on Wednesday and think that others will find your perspective compelling as well.