Saturday, June 03, 2006
What happened to the aliens legalized in 1986?
The Los Angeles Times has an interesting article that touches on something I have been wondering: what actually happened to the illegal aliens who received amnesty in 1986? It seems to me that the answer to this question is extremely relevant to the current political argument, at least insofar as it would confirm or refute the consequential claims made for and against the pending amnesty proposal.
Now, the LA Times article is mostly a big pile of anecdotes pro and con, and as we know the sum of anecdotes is not data. Where's the data? I would be amazed if some enterprising social scientist had not systematically measured the fate of the Class of 1986, but perhaps the essential basic information, the list of amnesty beneficiaries, has not been available for some reason (the privacy of the people involved, or bureaucratic politics). The LA Times article refers obliquely, without any useful citations, to studies that were done in the late '80s -- just a couple of years into the experiment -- and I confess that I have not devoted myself to a literature search on the topic. It does seem to me, though, that the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the 1986 amnesty should be measurable against various standards. Such a study might compare the amnesty beneficiaries to (a) U.S. citizens who were equally as poor and uneducated in 1986 and (b) people who were illegals in 1986 and did not receive the amnesty. It could compare changes in economic status (income, employment, rates of business ownership, net worth), changes in social condition (rates of marriage, children born in and out of wedlock, church attendance, literacy in any language, literacy in English, other measures of academic achievement, rates of arrest and conviction for offenses other than immigration) and civic contribution (rates of volunteerism, participation in public affairs, enlistment in the military). Is there such a study? Any help in tracking one down would be much appreciated. If such a study has not been done, why not? It strikes me as an awesome and obvious dissertation topic. Finally, if there is no such data, how do we know what the consequences of the 1986 amnesty were without having measured the results?
4 Comments:
By 
Grumpy Old Man, at
Sat Jun 03, 10:29:00 AM:
The key question is the effect of the amnesty on illegal immigration afterwards. Given that the promised enforcement was either a cynical lie, incompetently administered, or both, did the fact that amnesty had been granted once encouraged more clandestine entries?
I believe the answer is yes, but I don't have the data.
If I am right, my "enforcement first" view makes sense.
By TigerHawk, at
Sat Jun 03, 10:37:00 AM:
I don't agree that the main significance of amnesty is its effect on illegal immigration. If the people who received the amnesty did no better than the people who did not receive amnesty, then we would learn that amnesty is a pretty damned pointless exercise. On the other hand, if the beneficiaries of amnesty became, on average, productive contributors to the American economy, American society and American spiritual life, we would then weigh the benefits of that upside against the burdens of the verified increases in illegal immigration resulting from the amnesty. If it turned out that the prospect of future citizenship or amnesty did not figure into the calculations of more than a small percentage of the subsequent illegals (perhaps they are motivated by short term economic considerations), we might decide that generational amnesty programs make a lot of sense.
In the abstract, who could be against "enforcement first"? The question is, enforce what, against whom, by what means?
By cakreiz, at
Sun Jun 04, 09:24:00 AM:
Relying on facts to shape social policy? A radical concept indeed.... don't know if it's ever been tried.
By 
, at
Tue Jun 06, 12:29:00 PM:
there is a migration institute at princeton run by prof. alejandro portes. he has in particular tracked mexican migration. i would not waste my time with maria tienda and her studies in the colonias and mexican-americans.
