Loopholes In The Immigration Reform And Control Act (IRCA)

Immigration laws have been controversial mainly due to their flawed nature, which imposes hierarchal structures of power – that separates people on the basis of gender and/or race – onto the lives of the population that these laws address. Despite the fact that immigration laws are largely aimed at addressing social changes, one tends to question the existence of loopholes in these laws that tend to result in discriminatory implementations. In other words, immigration laws have flaws that facilitate racial and gender exploits. There is definitely a power struggle here as a result of immigration laws being put into place and it is important to acknowledge that the manifestation of these flaws in immigration reforms lead to social inequality. Similarly, while immigration-related laws in the United States parallel, in a sense, the social changes occurring within the society, the loopholes in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) actually fails to address discrimination by enabling employers to exploit immigrant women in their work spaces. This is primarily because these female immigrant employees who no longer possess legal statuses post-IRCA are tied exclusively to one employer due to the IRCA, which reveals two degrees of separation between employers and employees: the first being the structure of positional power (i.e. employer-employee power distinction) and the second being a hierarchy of gender (with female employees appearing subordinate to employers who are typically men). Foremost, the flaws in immigration laws manifested as power relations of race in which the interpretation of these laws based on racial perceptions was taken to the extreme. Kevin R. Johnson, a Professor of Law and Chicana/o Studies at The University of California, Davis, points out that the first manifestation of racial discrimination in the U.S. immigrant naturalization laws was “from 1790 until the emancipation of African American slaves after the Civil War” when “immigrant naturalization was reserved for white people” (Johnson 133). Indeed, whiteness was an important criterion for naturalization, at least up until 1952 when an exception was eventually made to include “persons of African ancestry” (Johnson 133). While this may seem that the U.S. was finally leaving behind racial discriminations in its immigrant-related policies, there was still a flaw in this law that had remained unaddressed: it was not inclusive of how the Asian immigrant population of the U.S would be addressed. This then allowed for the cultural perception that Asians were regarded as outsiders to influence how this particular naturalization law was enforced. As a result, Asian immigrants were barred from obtaining citizenship, despite some of them being “classified [by scientists of the time] as biologically ‘white’” (Johnson 133). Thus, this illustrates that disregarding flaws in immigration policies was only contributing to the …show more content…
The IRCA was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986 and has two major components: first, “undocumented immigrants, in order to be eligible for the legalization program, must have entered the U.S. prior to January 1, 1982” and second, “undocumented workers employed after November 6, 1986 (the date the IRCA became law) must be able to prove to their employer that they are eligible to work.” According to anthropologist Leo R. Chavez and Associate Professor of Sociology and Ethnic Studies, Estevan T. Flores in “In Defense of the Alien,” this law favors employers, in a way, as they do not face penalties if their immigrant employees were hired before November 6, 1986 (as long as the workers remain in the U.S. after the date) (152). Johnson argues that provisions under the IRCA for employers actually counter the “prohibition against hiring undocumented immigrants” as they “fail to offer a realistic deterrent” for employers (137). This is primarily because employers are able to leverage “the uncertain immigration status of undocumented workers” to establish “the terms and conditions of employment,” a loophole that is not addressed by the IRCA (Johnson 137). Hence, the IRCA facilitates the power of employers over employees. The workers, on the other hand, are required to prove their legal status (should they change jobs) in order to be hired to work beyond the cutoff date (Chaves & Flores 152). The IRCA essentially leaves the workers, especially employees that are ineligible for legalization, in a vulnerable state employment situation that “may result in the already employed staying at their current place of work even under the most abject and exploitative of circumstances” (Chaves & Flores