The Immigration Act of 1990: Retreat from reform

This commentary on the US Immigration Act of 1990 reflects the position that the law is ill conceived misdirected deceptively designed and poorly timed. The reforms were not in the national interest. The justification for the law was the myth of pending labor shortages. When the country is not at full employment and there are labor shortages the policy should be to educate youth retrain adults eliminate discriminatory barriers and provide voluntary relocation programs to shift workers from labor surplus to shortage areas. There is no reason to assume future unskilled labor shortages when there are 27 million functionally illiterate adults and another 20 marginally literate adults. There is a mismatch of qualifications of job seekers and the actual needs of the market. The new law however expands the prior nepotistic family reunificaiton feature. Of the new limit of 7 persons/year the % of allowable visas to meet labor needs remains at 20%. This fixed figure of 140000 may also depress the market pressure to improve the human resource development system. Also included in this category are reserves for 10000 millionaire investors who promise to create at least 10 jobs. This reward of privilege does not deserve protection. Another special category is religious workers and the meaing is unclear. The new immigrants also have been found to have less schooling lower earnings lower labor force participation and higher poverty rates than earlier waves of immigration. The timing of the law is inappropriate during a recessionary period when competition for jobs with the foreign born seekers adds more pressure to an already exacerbating situation particularly in urban areas. The question is raised as to the extent of civil rights costs due to this immigration act. Another portion of the law allows compensation of 40000 visas to those countries affected by the existing law of which 40% of 16000 visas in the 1st 3 years are reserved for Ireland. The 1965 law had eliminated national origin influences and this law reestablishes it. The provision of "safe haven" offers another quagmire of abuse and contention. Clearly the labor market effects were not well thought out. The law reflects political considerations. It is not praiseworthy except for the attempt to correct past wrongs.