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.
…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
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