Legalization would not equal amnesty

“The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 legalized individuals who had resided unlawfully in the United States continuously for five years by granting temporary resident status adjustable to permanent residency. That law failed to curb the influx of illegal immigration. The lesson for Congress is that granting amnesty overwhelms subsequent efforts to enforce the law and create appropriate legal avenues for South-North migration.

Congress should strip provisions granting probationary status to individuals unlawfully residing in the United States from the Senate's proposed immigration bill and work to create a truly viable temporary worker program that will be popular with both potential employers and employees”. (Carafano, pg, 1, 2007) The bill passed in 1986 did not cover the border safety issues. And in reality, present bill is also not fulfilling border security issues. In present bill requirements of security is just restated which is already in law.

Most importantly, like the present Senate legislation, the immigration reform and control Act of 1986 was a bipartisan compromise and was powerfully supported by the president. “When President Reagan signed the bill, he declared, "It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration. " He believed that because the bill addressed the status of those illegally in the country and promised to reduce further mass illegal migration through more rigorous enforcement of the law and a temporary worker program”.

(Carafano, pg, 1, 2007) But it was never happened in his period of government. Other causes of the past immigration reform fiasco is very simple. Past immigration system was no where with the realities of American life. The United States was continuously producing opportunities for low skilled workers in crucial sectors for the sake of the United States economy like services and construction. In addition, the majority of the Americans was so happy to fill those jobs which were continued to shrink as the average American worker grew older and became an educated person.

Furthermore, the immigration system had no legal path for workers especially for Mexico and other non-developed nations to come to the United States even provisionally to fill those jobs. This was the major cause which resulted in widespread illegal immigration. Besides, the immigration opponent groups demanded more of the same unsuccessful policies, such as barbwire and more walls, whole divisions of troops at the border, the huge expatriation of undocumented workers were at a great economic and human cost.

On the other hand, the Bush's government approach, would substituted an unsafe, disorderly, and illegal flew of immigrants with one that was orderly, safe and legal. Another significant point is that in the period of early 1950s, rising illegal immigration from Mexico was greatly confronted with the United States policy choices. The response then was to rapidly increased provisional worker visas under the “Bracero program” and this resulted in an equally decline in illegal immigration.

In this regard, legalization would have improved the lot of billions of workers. Recently legalized workers would have owned more bargaining power in the marketplace, since they could more easily change their jobs to advance their working conditions and salaries. They would be more likely to cope with the criteria especially for private health insurance and to invest in their language and job skills. “Legalization would not equal amnesty.

Under the president's plan, legalized workers would not get automatic citizenship or even permanent residency. They would receive only a temporary visa renewable for a limited time. They would have to pay a fine for having lived here illegally that would not be chump change for low-skilled workers. They would have to get in line with everybody else to apply for permanent status under existing law”. (Griswold, pg, 1, 2004)