Immigration Reform

Absorbed with South Africa, trade policy, farm credit, and tax reform, the Senate, remarkably enough, passed an immigration reform bill in mid-September. “Public demand for immigration reform continues unabated,” says Senator Alan Simpson (R., Wyo.), sponsor of the 1985 Immigration Reform and Control Act. The bill contains the same three essential provisions as its 1984 forerunner: fines or jail sentences for those employers who hire undocumented workers; amnesty for illegal aliens who have lived in the U.S. before 1980; and limited numbers of agricultural guest-workers to harvest perishable crops.

In the House, Peter Rodino (D., N.J.) and Romano Mazzoli (D., Ky.) have co-sponsored their own immigration bill, which differs marginally from the Simpson model. The Senate bill calls for higher civil penalties (employer sanctions) than its House counterpart, and its amnesty provision is stricter: Amnesty would be granted on condition that a commission, appointed by the President, certifies that employer sanctions and enhanced border enforcement have in fact curtailed illegal entry. In any case, amnesty cannot be delayed for longer than three years. The House amnesty, which takes effect upon the bill’s passage, applies to illegals living in the U.S. prior to January 1982, whereas the Senate version requires aliens seeking amnesty to have lived here before January 1, 1980. Anti-amnesty sentiment, by the way, is growing among legislators. Many now share the view of Glenn English (D., Okla.), who says that he would not vote “for any bill” containing an amnesty provision.

JM

About the Author

John McLaughlin

Featured Tags

House of Representatives

Absorbed with South Africa, trade policy, farm credit, and tax reform, the Senate, remarkably enough, passed an immigration reform bill in mid-September. “Public demand for immigration reform continues unabated,” says Senator Alan Simpson (R., Wyo.), sponsor of the 1985 Immigration Reform and Control Act. The bill contains the same three essential provisions as its 1984 forerunner: fines or jail sentences for those employers who hire undocumented workers; amnesty for illegal aliens who have lived in the U.S. before 1980; and limited numbers of agricultural guest-workers to harvest perishable crops.

In the House, Peter Rodino (D., N.J.) and Romano Mazzoli (D., Ky.) have co-sponsored their own immigration bill, which differs marginally from the Simpson model. The Senate bill calls for higher civil penalties (employer sanctions) than its House counterpart, and its amnesty provision is stricter: Amnesty would be granted on condition that a commission, appointed by the President, certifies that employer sanctions and enhanced border enforcement have in fact curtailed illegal entry. In any case, amnesty cannot be delayed for longer than three years. The House amnesty, which takes effect upon the bill’s passage, applies to illegals living in the U.S. prior to January 1982, whereas the Senate version requires aliens seeking amnesty to have lived here before January 1, 1980. Anti-amnesty sentiment, by the way, is growing among legislators. Many now share the view of Glenn English (D., Okla.), who says that he would not vote “for any bill” containing an amnesty provision.