# data[].attributes.body
Excluded non-white people from eligibility to naturalize. Naturalization requirements included two years of residence in the country and “good moral character,” and an applicant must be a “free white person.” The Naturalization Act of 1795 extended the residency requirement to five years. In 1798, this was extended to 14 years, then back to five in 1802.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
3/4/1790

Add all page(s) of this document to activity:

Add only page 1 to activity:

Add only page 2 to activity:

H.R. 40, a Bill to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization and Enable Aliens to Hold Lands under Certain Conditions, was introduced in the Senate on March 4, 1790. The bill provided that "any Alien being a free white person" who had resided within the United States for two years could file a petition for naturalization in any common law court located in a state in which they had resided for at least one year. After "making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States," such person would become a citizen. It also provided citizenship for children of U.S. citizens who were born abroad.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was signed into law on March 26, 1790.

This primary source comes from the Records of the U.S. Senate.

National Archives Identifier: 7452136

Full Citation: A Bill to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization, and Enable Aliens to Hold Lands under Certain Conditions; 3/4/1790; (SEN1A-C1); Bills and Resolutions Originating in the House and Considered in the Senate, 1789 - 2002; Records of the U.S. Senate, Record Group 46; National Archives Building,Washington, DC. [Online Version, https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/naturalization-act-of-1790, September 13, 2020]

Activities that use this document

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Add all page(s) of this document to activity: Add only page 1 to activity: Add only page 2 to activity: H.R. 40, a Bill to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization and Enable Aliens to Hold Lands under Certain Conditions, was introduced in the Senate on March 4, 1790.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) - Immigration History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the settlement of the Mexican-American War, this treaty formalized the United States’ annexation of a major portion of northern Mexico, El Norte, and conferred citizenship on Mexicans choosing to remain in the territory.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
People v. Hall (1854) - Immigration History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This California Supreme Court case ruled that the testimony of a Chinese man who witnessed a murder by a white man was inadmissible, denying Chinese alongside Native and African Americans the status to testify in courts against whites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Dred Scott Decision: Crash Course Black American History #16

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary

Ratified in 1868 to secure equal treatment for African Americans after the end of slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment also provided key rights for immigrants and their families such as birthright citizenship, equal protections, and due process. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to extend birthright citizenship to all persons born in the United States and as a protection against discrimination based on categories such as race, class, and gender for legal residents. Starting in the 1890s, however, courts have ruled that the federal government's "sovereign and plenary power" over immigration can supersede these civil rights protections, such as in cases involving excludable aliens and unauthorized immigrants whose immigration related situations are handled through the immigration bureaucracy and courts.

Source

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ratified in 1868 to secure equal treatment for African Americans after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed birthright citizenship for all persons born in the United States. It also provided for equal protections and due process for all legal residents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Naturalization Act of 1870 - Immigration History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Naturalization Act of 1870 explicitly extended naturalization rights already enjoyed by white immigrants to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent,” thus denying access to the rights and protections of citizenship to other nonwhite immigrant groups.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.pbs.org/ancestorsintheamericas/time_21.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1882
CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT: A LAW FOR ALL ASIANS

In spite of the 1880 United States and China Treaty giving the U.S. the right to limit but "not absolutely prohibit" Chinese immigration, the U.S. Congress passes an exclusionary FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW hitherto without precedent: the CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT of 1882. The Act bans immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States and prohibits Chinese from becoming naturalized citizens. Their American-born children will also have to fight in the courts, in a series of cases, to finally claim de facto their de jure constitutional right to citizenship by birth.

Although initially designed for the Chinese, as each of the other four early Asian groups arrive - Japanese, Asian Indian, Filipino, Koreans - the same Chinese Exclusion law will be bent, twisted and arbitrarily added onto, in changing permutations, to restrict naturalization rights as well. The applied law was not interested in real differences between the groups in language, culture, nationality, religion, class or even "race" as defined by the ethnologists of the day (i.e., Asian Indians are not "Mongolians").

Enforced for 60 years (1882-1943), and disabling to normal Asian family formation in America, the Chinese Exclusion Act is actively challenged by the Chinese. Multiple court cases are brought by community leaders, and failing collective redress in the courts, the law is ultimately circumvented by a variety of improvised survival strategies.

1906 San Francisco Earthquake / Chinese "Paper Sons"
The San Francisco earthquake destroys records and allows the beginning of the "paper son" strategy to circumvent immigration exclusion. Some Chinese claim citizenship status, proof of which was lost in the earthquake. So, new citizenship papers are obtained, and with it, the derivative right to pass on citizenship rights to one's children. These are then "paper sons" of American citizens who have the right to immigrate to the U.S. (They tend to be "sons" rather than "daughters" following the period's patriarchal privileging of males.) And these "paper son" papers may be given to a relative or sold.

The Chinese Exclusion Act is finally repealed in 1943 during World War II, as a goodwill gesture to U.S. wartime ally, China, allowing naturalization for the first time, as well as immigration. The immigration quota newly allotted the Chinese, however, is set at a minuscule 105 per year, collectively from all countries, compared to thousands per year allowed immigrants from individual West European countries.

Each Asian American group, in turn mount their own separate battles in U.S. courts seeking to gain immigration and naturalization rights, livelihood, labor, education rights and redress of various social inequalities. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Law is amended to require a certificate as the sole permissible evidence for re-entry.

1888 - Scott Act nullifies Chinese reentry certificates, stranding 20,000 Chinese visiting abroad, denying their right of return to the US.

1889 - Chan Ping vs. U.S. upholds constitutionality of Chinese exclusion.

1892 - Geary Law renews exclusion of Chinese laborers for another ten years and requires all Chinese to register.

1892 - Fong Yue Ting vs. U.S. challenges requirement to register and loses to U.S. Supreme Court upholding constitutionality of Geary Law requiring registration.

1884 - Joseph and Mary Tape sue San Francisco school board to enroll their daughter, Mamie, in a public school; win their case in the California State Supreme Court.

1885 - San Francisco builds new segregated "oriental school" to thwart the full effect of the requirement to include "Mongolian" children in the public schools.

1885 - Chinese laundry men win case in Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, which declares that a law with unequal impact on different groups is discriminatory and is unconstitutional.

1898 - Wong Kim Ark vs. U.S. Supreme Court case decides that Chinese born in the United States cannot be stripped of their citizenship rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PBS - "Ancestors in the Americas" : Timeline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1882 CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT: A LAW FOR ALL ASIANS In spite of the 1880 United States and China Treaty giving the U.S. the right to limit but "not absolutely prohibit" Chinese immigration, the U.S. Congress passes an exclusionary FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW hitherto without precedent: the CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT of 1882.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary

In a case focused on a Native American man, John Elk, denied the right to vote after he left his reservation and began living among white people, the Supreme Court found that Native Americans were not citizens by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and could therefore be denied the right to vote.

Source
Elk v. Wilkins
"An Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the government of the United States, who has voluntarily separated himself from his tribe, and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a state, but who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution.
A petition alleging that the plaintiff is an Indian, and was born within the United States, and has severed his tribal relation to the Indian tribes, and fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, and still so continues subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is a bona fide resident of the Nebraska and City of Omaha, does not show that he is a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Elk v. Wilkins (1884) - Immigration History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a case focused on a Native American man, John Elk, denied the right to vote after he left his reservation and began living among white people, the Supreme Court found that Native Americans were not citizens by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and could therefore be denied the right to vote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Suggested Sequencing

Introduction

The Dawes Act of 1887 was passed in an effort to alleviate American Indian poverty. Most Americans in positions of power believed at the time that it was necessary for American Indians to adopt the Western way of life to emerge from the poverty that existed on the reservations. United States political leaders believed the Indians' way of life was less civilized and that for them to improve their condition, it was essential for them to adopt the principles of private property. The Dawes Act offered the incentive of full U.S. citizenship to motivate American Indians to accept this change. However, the act was controversial because it also was designed to destroy the social fabric of tribal life and the traditional way of life for many American Indian tribes.

Sourcing Questions

1. What economic goals did the Dawes Act seek to accomplish?

2. What social goals did the Dawes Act seek to accomplish?

severalty(n): the condition of being separate; individual ownership

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled . . . the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, authorized, whenever in his opinion any reservation or any part thereof of such Indians is advantageous for agricultural and grazing purposes . . . to allot the lands in said reservation in severalty to any Indian located thereon in quantities as follows:

To each head of a family, one-quarter of a section;

To each single person over eighteen years of age, one-eighth of a section;

To each orphan child under eighteen years of age, one-eighth of a section; and

To each other single person under eighteen years now living, or who may be born prior to the date of the order of the President directing an allotment of the lands embraced in any reservation, one-sixteenth of a section: . . .

All allotments set apart under the provisions of this act shall be selected by the Indians, heads of families selecting for their minor children, and the agents shall select for each orphan child, and in such manner as to embrace the improvements of the Indians making the selection. . . . That if any one entitled to an allotment shall fail to make a selection within four years after the President shall direct that allotments may be made on a particular reservation, the Secretary of the Interior may direct the agent of such tribe or band, if such there be, and if there be no agent, then a special agent appointed for that purpose, to make a selection for such Indian. . .

That upon the approval of the allotments provided for in this act by the Secretary of the Interior, he shall cause patents to issue therefor in the name of the allotted, which patents shall be of the legal effect, and declare that the United States does and will hold the land thus allotted, for the period of twenty-five years, in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made . . .

That upon the completion of said allotments and the patenting of the lands to said allotted, each and every member of the respective bands or tribes of Indians to whom allotments have been made shall have the benefit of and be subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the State or Territory in which they may reside; and no Territory shall pass or enforce any law denying any such Indian within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

And every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States to whom allotments shall have been made under the provisions of this act, or under any law or treaty, and every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States who has voluntarily taken up, within said limits, his residence separate and apart from any tribe of Indians therein, and has adopted the habits of civilized life, is hereby declared to be a citizen of the United States

Comprehension Questions

1. How much land did the Dawes Act allot to individual Indians?

2. How long did individuals have to select their land?

3. What happened if an individual did not select their land?

4. What conditions came with the allotment of land?

5. How were the Indians who accepted the land to be treated by state or territorial law?

6. What incentive was offered to Indians who accepted the land, lived apart from their tribe, and adopted a "civilized" (Western) way of life?

Historical Reasoning Questions

1. How did the Dawes Act fit into the founding tradition of the United States, with a focus on promoting and protecting natural rights?

2. In what ways did the Dawes Act violate the natural rights of American Indians?

Full Text: https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=50&page=transcript

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Dawes Act, 1887 - Bill of Rights Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Dawes Act of 1887 was passed in an effort to alleviate American Indian poverty. Most Americans in positions of power believed at the time that it was necessary for American Indians to adopt the Western way of life to emerge from the poverty that existed on the reservations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
American Experience
On March 28, 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark had acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."

Aired: 05/29/18

Rating: NR

Problems Playing Video? Report a Problem |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
American Experience | United States v. Wong Kim Ark | Season 30

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
American Experience On March 28, 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark had acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Expatriation Act of 1907 - Immigration History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Under the principle that women assumed the citizenship of their husbands, this act stripped citizenship from U.S.-born women when they married noncitizen immigrant men.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alien Land Laws in California (1913 & 1920)

# data[].attributes.subject
Alien Land Laws in California (1913 & 1920)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary

Japanese Americans responded to anti-Asian hostility by focusing on agriculture as an economic endeavor that would be less threatening to whites. Japanese Americans succeeded in establishing farms supported by ethnic networks that facilitated purchasing of supplies and equipment, transportation, and marketing. The governments of many western states targeted Japanese Americans by passing legislation that banned "aliens ineligible for citizenship" from owning or leasing land. Japanese Americans circumvented these laws by placing land under the names of U.S.-born children or under corporate ownership, practices restricted by later versions of these laws. Although these laws were clearly based on racially discriminatory categories, the Supreme Court upheld them as constitutional in the early 1920s. Many Japanese Americans were forced to relinquish their farms and moved elsewhere, a practice that became formal U.S. policy with incarceration during World War II.

Source

An act relating to the rights, powers and disabilities of aliens and of certain companies, associations and corporations with respect to property in this state . . . .

Section 1. All aliens eligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States may acquire, possess, enjoy, transmit, and inherit real property, or any interest therein, in this state in the same manner and to the same extent as citizens of the United States, except as otherwise provided by the laws of this state.

Sec. 2. All aliens other than those mentioned in section one of this act may acquire, possess, enjoy, and transfer real property, or any interest therein, in this state in the manner and to the extent and for the purpose prescribed by any treaty now existing between the government of the United States and the nation or country . . . and not otherwise, and may in addition thereto lease lands in this state for agricultural purposes for a term not exceeding three years.

Sec. 3. Any company, association or corporation organized under the laws of this or any other state or nation, of which a majority of the members are aliens other than those specified in section one of this act, or in which a majority of the issued capital stock is owned by such aliens, may acquire, possess, enjoy and convey real property, or any interest therein, in this state, in the manner and to the extent and for the purposes prescribed by any treaty no existing between the government of the United States and the nation or country of which such members or stockholders are citizens or subjects, and not otherwise, and may in addition thereto lease lands in this state for agricultural purposes for a term not exceeding three years...

Sec. 5. Any real property hereafter acquired in fee in violation of the provisions of this act by any alien mentioned in section two of this act, or by any company, association or corporation mentioned in section three of this act, shall . . . become and remain property of the State of California...

Analysis

Commentary by Franklin Odo:​ California led the way for fifteen states to pass legislation preventing "aliens ineligible to citizenship" from owning land. Although occasionally used against other Asians, these laws were directly aimed at Japanese immigrants, who were perceived as gaining undue economic power through agricultural holdings. Legislation using the words "Asian" or "Japanese" would clearly be unconstitutional, hence the circumlocution. Violators would have their property revert to control by the state. But at least some Japanese manage to evade the law, and the legislature moved in 1920 to strengthen its provisions as well as prohibit the practice of immigrant Japanese (as guardians) placing land in the legal hands of their citizen children. The Supreme Court declared such laws constitutional in 1923, and California's law remained on the books until 1956, although court cases had invalidated the 1920 and 1913 Alien Land Laws inOyama v, California (1948) and Fuji Sei v. State of California (1952).
Excerpt from: Odo, F. (ed.) (2002). The columbia documentary history of the Asian American experience. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alien Land Laws in California (1913 & 1920) - Immigration History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Japanese Americans responded to anti-Asian hostility by focusing on agriculture as an economic endeavor that would be less threatening to whites. Japanese Americans succeeded in establishing farms supported by ethnic networks that facilitated purchasing of supplies and equipment, transportation, and marketing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary

The Jones Act clarified the status of Puerto Ricans after the United States acquired Puerto Rico, along with Cuba and the Philippines, in 1898 after its military victory over Spain. As inhabitants of an incorporated territory, Puerto Ricans could participate in U.S. elections and send a nonvoting representative to Congress.

As in the Philippines, the Puerto Rican independence movement against Spain was quashed with its acquisition by the United States. In contrast to Puerto Ricans, Filipinos did not gain U.S. citizenship and were categorized instead as "U.S. nationals," which allowed them the right to migrate within U.S. territory but not to vote. Puerto Ricans continued to agitate for greater autonomy and independence from the United States and gained the status of a commonwealth in 1952.

Source

CHAP. 145.-An Act To provide a civil government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions of this Act shall apply to the island of Porto Rico, and to the adjacent islands included belonging to the United States, and waters of those islands; and the name Porto Rico as used in this Act shall be held to include not only the island of that name but all the adjacent islands as aforesaid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jones-Shafroth Act (1917) - Immigration History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Jones Act clarified the status of Puerto Ricans after the United States acquired Puerto Rico, along with Cuba and the Philippines, in 1898 after its military victory over Spain. As inhabitants of an incorporated territory, Puerto Ricans could participate in U.S. elections and send a nonvoting representative to Congress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary

The hardening of U.S. isolationism and nativism set the stage for the Supreme Court to affirm the 1790 Nationality Act's prohibition against naturalization for Asians because they were considered racially not "white" regardless of their demonstrated acculturation and integration. Takao Ozawa was a graduate of a U.S. college living and working in Hawaii with his family. While he was otherwise qualified for naturalization and citizenship, his application for citizenship was rejected on the basis of his race. The next year in the case of Thind v. United States, the Supreme Court would contradict itself in applying a different standard of race in another case regarding Asian American citizenship.

Source

"Mr. Justice Sutherland delivered the opinion of the court:

The appellant is a person of the Japanese race, born in Japan. He applied, on October 16, 1914, to the United States district court for the territory of Hawaii to be admitted as a citizen of the United States. His petition was opposed by the United States district attorney for the district of Hawaii. Including the period of his residence in Hawaii appellant had continuously resided in the United States for twenty years. He was a graduate of the Berkeley, California, high School, had been nearly three years a student in the University of California, had educated his children in American schools, his family attended American churches, and he had maintained the use of the English language in his home. That he was well qualified by character and education for citizenship is conceded . . . .

The language of the Naturalization Laws from 1790 to 1870 had been uniformly such as to deny the privilege of naturalization to an alien unless he came within the description 'free white person'... Beginning with the decision of Circuit Judge Sawyer... the Federal and state courts, in an almost unbroken line, have held that the words 'white person' were meant to indicate a person of what is popularly known as the Caucasian race . . . .

The appellant in the case now under consideration, however, is clearly of a race which is not Caucasian, and therefore belong entirely outside the zone on the negative side . . . These decisions are sustained by numerous scientific authorities . . . We think these decisions are right, and so hold."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ozawa v. United States (1922) - Immigration History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The hardening of U.S. isolationism and nativism set the stage for the Supreme Court to affirm the 1790 Nationality Act's prohibition against naturalization for Asians because they were considered racially not "white" regardless of their demonstrated acculturation and integration. Takao Ozawa was a graduate of a U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary

In 1924, Congress regularized the U.S. citizenship status of all Native Americans by birthright. All other persons born within the United States had gained citizenship with the Fourteenth Amendment but not Native Americans, whose citizenship status had been allocated irregularly depending on descent, gender and marital status, and status to their tribal nations.

Source

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.

Approved June 2, 1924

Analysis

The SAI (Society of American Indians) has been criticized for desiring a US citizenship that would render Native sovereignties obsolete, based on the dichotomies conceived at the time: that "achieving" U.S. citizenship meant refusing tribal authority. The settler-colonial concept of citizenship . . . made the mutual exclusivity of Indian "ward" and US "citizen" appear inescapable and natural. At the time ward versus citizen looked like the only choice possible . . . .

Faced with the choice between Indian wardship's bitter subjugations and US citizenship's illusory freedoms, the SAI chose citizenship. Perhaps they chose the possibilities they could imagine within citizenship and a plural democratic nation. In their work for Native people, SAI intellectuals developed layered possibilities that stretched far beyond the false dichotomy of savagery versus civilization posed by settler colonial society. Local work imagined and opened up possibilities of living as fully modern citizens, dynamic contributors to the democratic life of the US, and as nations with inherent sovereignty. In the past century Native individuals, nations, and intellectuals have further developed ideas of multiple, layered citizenships and multiple, layered sovereignties that open up possibilities rather than block them off. Native peoples must have the power to make choices within the realm of possibilities, not the realm of foreclosed opportunities.

Excerpt from:
Lomawaima, K. T. (2013). The mutuality of citizenship and sovereignty: The Society of American Indians and the battle to inherit America. American Indian Quarterly, 37( 3), 333-351.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 - Immigration History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1924, Congress regularized the U.S. citizenship status of all Native Americans by birthright. All other persons born within the United States had gained citizenship with the Fourteenth Amendment but not Native Americans, whose citizenship status had been allocated irregularly depending on descent, gender and marital status, and status to their tribal nations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
1986: Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

# data[].attributes.headline
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

# data[].attributes.subject
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Marion S. Trikosko, photographer Aliens, immigration & naturalization [raids, Illinois] 1977. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.

Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act or the Reagan Amnesty) and President Ronald Reagan signed it into law in November 1986. This act introduced civil and criminal penalties to employers who knowingly hired undocumented immigrants or individuals unauthorized to work in the U.S. However, the act also offered legalization, which led to lawful permanent residence (LPR) and prospective naturalization to undocumented migrants, who entered the country prior to 1982. Farm workers who could validate at least ninety days of employment also qualified for lawful permanent residency.

U.S. law required qualified applicants, who had continuously resided in the U.S. since 1982, to apply within a one-year window, from May 1987 to May 1988, pay a fee, and provide extensive documentation, which included fingerprints, employment history, proof of continuous residency, and other documents. After 1986, U.S. law required hired employees to demonstrate work eligibility by filling out an I-9 form and submitting certifications of citizenship or work authorization. Applicants also had to complete interviews and medical examinations. Employers who failed to document 1-9 forms upon inspection were charged with warnings, fines, or criminal proceedings. The General Accounting Office (GAO) was also established to investigate employer discrimination against authorized immigrant workers.

An estimated 3 million individuals-mostly of Hispanic descent-gained legal status through IRCA, securing economic and social opportunities as legal residents of the United States and gaining protection from deportation. In an effort to halt unlawful crossings and unauthorized workers, the IRCA also approved increased border security resources, including higher budgets for the Border Patrol and the Department of Labor.

Timeline

1970s

Civil unrest in Central America leads to an increase of refugees in the United States.

1981

The Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy proposes recommendations on the issue of unlawful immigration

January 1, 1982

Only those who entered the U.S. prior to January 1, 1982 are eligible to apply for IRCA benefits.

May 1985

The Immigration Reform and Control Act is introduced by Senator Alan Simpson and is passed by the Senate.

November 1986

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (Simpson-Mazzoli Act) is signed into law by President Reagan, and all employers are required to request Form I-9 to any employees hired.

Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Guides: A Latinx Resource Guide: Civil Rights Cases and Events in the United States: 1986: Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act or the Reagan Amnesty) and President Ronald Reagan signed it into law in November 1986. This act introduced civil and criminal penalties to employers who knowingly hired undocumented immigrants or individuals unauthorized to work in the U.S.