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

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

# data[].attributes.body
On November 6, 1986, then President Ronald Reagan and the 99th US Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, or the IRCA. The IRCA made it much harder for illegal immigrants to work jobs by requiring that employers check that their prospective employees are legally allowed to work and are who they say they are. This was impactful because it meant that, suddenly, it was much harder for many hispanic immigrants to become employed. On the other hand, however, the IRCA also legalized the undocumented immigrants who had arrived in America before January 1, 1982, which had a net postive immpact for the undocumented immigrants who were already in the country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our video team recently posted a short documentary featuring the story of Marisol Conde-Hernandez, an undocumented immigrant currently studying at Rutgers Law School:

"I think that I'm the first undocumented person to attend law school in the state of New Jersey," Conde-Hernandez says in the film. "It's still in the back of my mind because I'm undocumented. What if I can't practice as an attorney?"

In the comments section for the video, Atlantic readers discussed immigration policy, which has become the signature issue for the presumptive GOP nominee for U.S. president. One reader wants to know more about a landmark piece of legislation passed under President Ronald Reagan:

Has there been any deep longitudinal or follow-up study of Reagan's 1986 amnesty recipients? There were about three million of them, if I recall correctly. I'd be interested in how they fared economically and, more so, how their kids fared.

First, a bit of background: The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) passed Congress 30 years ago this November. ( Here's the New York Times report of Reagan signing the bill.) Eric Schlosser, in his award-winning 1995 investigative piece for The Atlantic, " In the Strawberry Fields," described how the IRCA was so long in the making:

In 1951 the President's Commission on Migratory Labor condemned the abysmal living conditions of illegal immigrants employed as migrant farm workers in the United States. At the time, workers were found living in orchards and irrigation ditches. They lived in constant fear of apprehension, like fugitives, and were routinely exploited by their employers, who could maintain unsafe working conditions, cut wages, or abruptly dismiss them with little fear of reprisal. In many cases the life of these migrants was, according to the commission, "virtually peonage."

The commission estimated that 40 percent of the migrants in the United States--at least 400,000 people--were illegal immigrants. Their presence in such large numbers depressed wages for all farm workers; that was "unquestionable." [...]

The commission argued that the only way to stop the flow of illegals was to impose harsh punishments on those who employed and exploited them. It suggested fines, imprisonment, and a strict prohibition of interstate commerce in any goods produced or harvested by illegal immigrants. [...] Congress ignored the commission's recommendations, and for the next two decades it was a crime to be an illegal immigrant in the United States but not a crime to employ one.

Then came the IRCA, "accepted as a once-only great compromise," wrote the Pulitzer-Prize winning scholar Jack Miles for the June 1994 issue of The Atlantic:

The mass legalization of then-illegal immigrants was traded for the promise that a new program of employer sanctions would destroy the incentive for further mass immigration. That hope proved vain; but if it had never been entertained, IRCA would never have passed.

That hope proved vain because, as Schlosser put it, "these sanctions have rarely been applied":

There are approximately 873,400 private employers in California--and only about 200 federal inspectors to investigate workplace violations of the immigration code. Moreover, the federal penalties for employing an illegal immigrant are mild. A first offense may result in a fine of $250, a third offense in a fine of $3,000.

Instead of stemming illegal immigration, IRCA has actually encouraged it. In response to growers' fears that the new sanctions on employers would create a shortage of farm workers, Congress included in the bill a special amnesty for illegal immigrants who could prove that they had done farm work in the United States during the previous year. It did not demand much proof. [The program] was expected to grant legal status to 350,000 illegal immigrants. Instead more than 1.3 million illegal immigrants--a number roughly equivalent at the time to a sixth of the adult male population of rural Mexico--applied for this amnesty, most of them using phony documents in what has been called one of the greatest immigration frauds in American history.

Our reader is roughly correct about the eventual numbers: Around 2.7 million people received legal status under the IRCA, according to The Washington Post 's Emily Badger. How exactly did those granted amnesty fare? It's not very clear. Here's Badger:

So what do we know about what happened to that earlier wave of immigrants? Only a little bit - and hardly enough to measure the impact of a massive government policy change.

The Department of Labor sponsored two survey studies following up on several thousand of the IRCA immigrants - in 1989 and then again in 1992, five years after the law went into effect. Those studies suggested that immigrants made significant wage gains in the years after legalization, many of them by obtaining better jobs. Government records also revealed over time how many of them became naturalized citizens. In 1996, the year the entire IRCA cohort was eligible, a quarter of a million were naturalized. By 2001, one-third of the entire group had been.

Regarding our reader's inquiry about the kids:

[Some] research suggests that children of undocumented immigrants are more likely to be poor and in poor health than children of legal parents. And so we might reasonably expect the children of immigrants to benefit from their legal status, too - even if they're not born until well after any amnesty is granted.

Read the rest of Badger's report here. If you're interested in digging deeper into the IRCA or the immigration issue more generally, please let us know. Priscilla recently examined the present-day debate for our A&Q series, if you're curious about some of the basics. Update from a reader, G.A., who raises some interesting questions:

I'm curious, as this subject arises, how advocates for illegal immigrants view the Reagan amnesty. Did it work? Did it fail?

Perhaps more important than the issue of fixing the "broken immigration system," which is the narrative commonly heard, is the question of what happens AFTER such a reform is passed. Sort of like how "winning" the war in Iraq (defeating Saddam's forces) was far easier than winning the peace, as it were. How do advocates for illegal immigrants convince American citizens that a reform would address their concerns?

I just wonder if 30 years from now, analysts will write about the failed Clinton amnesty. And to really play devil's advocate here, is the immigration system really broken? Or are people simply ignoring the system and its penalties and later claiming that it is unfair?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Looking Back at Amnesty Under Ronald Reagan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our video team recently posted a short documentary featuring the story of Marisol Conde-Hernandez, an undocumented immigrant currently studying at Rutgers Law School: "I think that I'm the first undocumented person to attend law school in the state of New Jersey," Conde-Hernandez says in the film.

# data[].attributes.headline
1991- Referendum to Puerto Rican Statehood 

# data[].attributes.subject
1991- Referendum to Puerto Rican Statehood 

# data[].attributes.body
Puerto Rico still remains today as only a territory of the United States, meaning they are severely limited in any of the freedoms that come with being a state or citizens in the U.S.. In 1991, Puerto Rico held a constitutional referendum requesting to become a free democratic state of the U.S., granting voting rights, representation in the capital, protection under the constitution, and U.S. citizenship to all current and future citizens of Puerto Rico. The original vote was to decide between statehood, independence, or remaining a commonwealth. Puerto Ricans votes to try to become a state, but it was rejected by the U.S. congress by 54.1%, and Puerto Rico did not gain any of the liberties that come with being an American state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (01/23/1991)

Puerto Rico Status Referendum Act - Title I - Requires an island-wide referendum to be held in Puerto Rico in which voters will be presented a choice of three status options for Puerto Rico as follows: (1) statehood; (2) independence; or (3) commonwealth. Specifies a date or time period during which such referendum must occur. Provides for a runoff referendum between the two status options which received the largest number of votes if there is not a majority in favor of one of the options. Requires such referendum to include "None of the Above" as an option. Requires the Governor of Puerto Rico to certify to the President and the Congress the results of the referendum.

Authorizes any aggrieved person to institute an action to challenge the choice certified by the Governor. Gives a three-judge court exclusive jurisdiction over all such claims. Provides that an appeal from a final judgment of such three-judge court will lie to the U.S. Supreme Court by way of certiorari.

Requires the Chairmen of specified congressional committees to introduce the appropriate title (II, III, or IV) of this Act to implement the status selected by the People of Puerto Rico. Declares that enactment of this Act constitutes a commitment by the Congress to implement the status receiving a majority.

Makes the implementation legislation effective in accordance with its terms, and upon approval by the people of Puerto Rico in a ratification vote.

Directs the Joint Committee on Printing to provide a Referendum Information Booklet to each voter household in Puerto Rico at least thirty days before such referendum. Authorizes appropriations.

Title II: Statehood - Declares Puerto Rico, upon certification under title I of this Act, to be a State of the United States admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the other States effective January 1 of the 5th calendar year following such ratification.

Provides that any lands and other properties that are set aside pursuant to law for the use of the United States shall remain the property of the United States. Requires each Federal agency having control over such lands or property retained by the United States to report to the President and the Congress concerning the continued need for such land or property.

Provides for the election of U.S. Senators and Representatives. States that the office of Resident Commissioner shall cease to exist upon the swearing in of the first Member of the House. Increases the permanent membership of the House of Representatives to account for the additional Representatives from Puerto Rico.

Continues in force all of the local territorial laws in force at the time of Puerto Rico's admission into the Union. States that all of the laws of the United States shall have the same force and effect within Puerto Rico as on the date immediately prior to the date of admission, with enumerated exceptions.

Directs the President to appoint a Commission on Federal laws to survey U.S. laws and to make recommendations to the Congress as to which laws should be made applicable to Puerto Rico. Requires the Commission to report to the Congress on such recommendations. Authorizes appropriations.

Provides for the continuation of civil causes of action and criminal offenses. Preserves the right of judicial review of final decisions of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico or the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.

Reserves authority in the United States for the exercise by the Congress of the power of exclusive legislation over lands held by the United States for defense or Coast Guard purposes. States that Puerto Rico shall always have the right to serve civil or criminal process within such lands for acts committed within the State but outside such lands.

Provides that no provision of this title will operate to confer, terminate, or restore U.S. nationality.

Directs the heads of all Federal agencies to examine the application of all programs within their jurisdiction and to recommend to the President and to the Commission on Federal Laws necessary changes and additional administrative requirements to properly apply Federal laws in the new State.

Provides that effective on the date of admission of Puerto Rico, all Federal programs which provide assistance to individuals shall apply in Puerto Rico as they apply within the several States.

Sets forth procedures for distribution of certain entitlement benefits to individuals under specified Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Food Stamp, and related programs.

Provides that all Federal tax laws applicable to all other States shall be applicable to Puerto Rico on and after the date of its admission as a State of the Union.

Continues the current Federal tax laws applicable to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico until it becomes a State.

Establishes a four-year transitional period for application of Federal income tax laws to Puerto Rico after its admission as a State. Excludes foreign sales corporations (FSCs) created or organized under Puerto Rican laws from such phase-in of Federal income tax laws during the transitional period.

Imposes Federal employment, excise, estate, and gift taxes during the transitional period, in the same manner as if the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico were a State, according to a four-year phase-in schedule. Provides for a four-year phase-out of the special Puerto Rico and possession tax credit as it applies to Puerto Rico.

Provides that all income and excise taxes collected under Federal internal revenue laws prior to admission of Puerto Rico as a State shall be covered into Puerto Rico's treasury.

Prohibits the Legislature of Puerto Rico from imposing additional duties after the Statehood referendum is ratified. Phases out over a specified transitional period any imposed duties in effect before such ratification.

Repeals provisions of Federal law with respect to imposing tariffs or duties on articles imported into Puerto Rico.

Amends the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act to eliminate the special treatment provided to Puerto Rico with respect to duty-free treatment of Puerto Rican articles imported into the United States.

Title III: Independence - Requires the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico to provide for the election of delegates to a Constitutional Convention to serve until the proclamation of independence and to draft a Constitution for the Republic of Puerto Rico. Requires such Convention to draft a Constitution establishing a republican form of government which is required to guarantee the protection of fundamental human rights. Provides for the adjustment of U.S. property rights and for the ratification of the Constitution.

Requires the Governor to issue a proclamation calling for the election of such officers of the Republic of Puerto Rico as may be required by the Constitution.

Provides for a Joint Transition Commission which shall be responsible for expediting the orderly transfer of all functions currently exercised by the United States in Puerto Rico. Requires that the costs of the Transition Commission be evenly divided between the United States and Puerto Rico. Authorizes appropriations for the U.S. share of such costs. Directs U.S. agencies to provide technical assistance to the Commission on a reimbursable basis.

Directs that any action arising from the title filed in U.S. Court be stayed and referred to the Joint Transition Commission for resolution.

Directs the President, within one month of the certification of elected officers and approval of specified agreements, to: (1) withdraw and surrender all rights of possession, supervision, jurisdiction, control, or sovereignty then existing and exercised by the United States over Puerto Rico; and (2) recognize on behalf of the United States the independence of Puerto Rico.

Vests all property, rights, and interest which the United States may have acquired over Puerto Rico, with an exception, in the Republic of Puerto Rico. Withdraws the application of all U.S. laws applicable to Puerto Rico immediately prior to independence.

Requires Puerto Rico to recognize all orders and judgments rendered by U.S. or Commonwealth courts prior to independence. Declares that upon the proclamation of independence, the judicial power of the United States shall no longer extend to Puerto Rico. Provides for pending proceedings.

Deems the Government of the Republic of Puerto Rico the successor to the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Directs the President to notify the Governments with which the United States is in diplomatic correspondence, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States that: (1) the United States has recognized the independence of Puerto Rico; and (2) all obligations and responsibilities of the U.S. Government which arise from any valid international instruments affecting Puerto Rico shall cease.

Provides that all matters pertaining to Puerto Rican citizenship shall be regulated pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Republic. States that upon the ratification under this Act, Puerto Rico shall no longer be deemed to be a part of the United States for the purposes of acquiring U.S. citizenship. States that no person born outside of the United States after such ratification shall be a U.S. citizen at birth if the parents of such person acquired U.S. citizenship solely by virtue of being born in Puerto Rico and whose principle residence continued to be Puerto Rico on or after the Proclamation, unless the parent at the time of such person's birth is a U.S. citizen employed by the Federal Government. Permits certain non-U.S. citizens to enter, lawfully engage in occupations, and establish residence as immigrants, in the United States.

Requires that specific arrangements for the use of military areas by the United States in Puerto Rico be negotiated by a task force established by the Joint Transition Commission. Requires such arrangements to come into effect simultaneously with the proclamation of independence.

Continues all Federal programs in Puerto Rico until the end of the fiscal year in which independence is proclaimed. Requires that specific arrangements for the continuation or phaseout of Federal programs be negotiated by a Task Force on Economic Assistance established by the Joint Transition Commission. Requires such arrangements to come into effect simultaneously with the proclamation of independence.

Directs the Joint Transition Commission to establish a Task Force on Social Security to negotiate agreements necessary for the coordination of the U.S. social security system established by title II of the Social Security Act with a similar system to be established in the new Republic. Provides that such agreement shall: (1) protect the benefit rights of all individuals who have attained benefit eligibility under such title as of five calendar years subsequent to the ratification of this Act; and (2) provide appropriate credit for others who have contributed to such system.

Ceases all programs operated under the Social Security Act in Puerto Rico at the end of the fiscal year in which independence is proclaimed.

Requires that on December 31 of the year of such proclamation of independence issued under this Act: (1) any amounts remaining in the Unemployment Trust Fund allocable to Puerto Rico shall be transferred to the Republic of Puerto Rico; (2) the Republic of Puerto Rico shall cease to be treated as a State for purposes of Federal law relating to unemployment taxes or benefits; and (3) any person who is a U.S. citizen as described by this Act shall not be treated as an employee with regard to U.S. laws relating to unemployment taxes or benefits.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should continue to maintain an open trading relationship with the Republic of Puerto Rico after a proclamation of independence is issued. States that the President should: (1) seek favorable treatment from other countries for exports from Puerto Rico; and (2) encourage other countries to maintain open trading relationships with Puerto Rico and to designate it as a beneficiary under any preferential trade arrangements.

Directs the Joint Transition Commission to establish a Task Force on Trade to consider and develop the manner in which trade between the United States and the Republic of Puerto Rico will be governed following the Proclamation of Independence. Requires the Task Force to submit a report on its deliberations, along with its recommendations, to the President and to specified congressional committees.

Applies a specified rate of duty of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to products of the Republic of Puerto Rico entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after the date of the proclamation of independence.

Amends the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act to include the Republic of Puerto Rico as a beneficiary country to receive duty-free treatment of its eligible articles.

Authorizes the President to enter into a trade agreement with the Republic of Puerto Rico that provides for: (1) the reduction or elimination of any duty imposed by the United States; (2) the elimination of any other barriers; and (3) the establishment of a free trade area between Puerto Rico and the United States.

Treats the Republic of Puerto Rico as a foreign country on and after the date of proclamation of independence, for purposes of Federal internal revenue laws.

Phases out the Puerto Rico and possession tax credit with respect to income or investments from activity in Puerto Rico over a four-year transition period.

Limits to certain bona fide individual residents of the Republic of Puerto Rico after its proclamation of independence the eligibility for tax exclusion of income from sources within Puerto Rico.

Phases out over a five-year period the covering of certain taxes and customs duties into the treasury of Puerto Rico.

Terminates the low-income housing credit with respect to Puerto Rico after ratification of this Act.

Continues tax-exempt status for interest on bonds issued by Puerto Rico or its local governments on or before (but not after) the last day of the fifth calendar year beginning after such ratification.

Prescribes certain gift tax rules for certain property transfers by a resident of Puerto Rico before the date of proclamation of independence.

Directs the Commission to establish a Task Force on Currency and Finance to negotiate an agreement to: (1) assist Puerto Rico in the design and establishment of a deposit insurance system; (2) determine the extent of financial support to be provided for the system by U.S. insurance organizations in which Puerto Rico's financial institutions currently participate; and (3) make the necessary arrangements with respect to the use of U.S. currency by Puerto Rico if requested by Puerto Rico. Maintains until maturity the guarantees provided by the U.S. Government to investors in the secondary market for existing loans which originated in Puerto Rico.

Requires the Republic of Puerto Rico to assume the outstanding debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its municipalities and instrumentalities.

Title IV: Commonwealth - Makes this title effective upon the ratification of the Commonwealth under this Act.

States that Puerto Rico is a unique juridical status, created as a compact between the People of Puerto Rico and the United States, and enjoys the sovereignty provided by the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution with autonomy consistent with its character, culture, and location. Makes this relationship permanent unless revoked by mutual consent.

Allows the Governor of Puerto Rico to certify that the Puerto Rico legislature has adopted a resolution that states that a Federal law should no longer apply to Puerto Rico because there is no overriding national interest in having such law apply to Puerto Rico. Provides that a Federal law so certified shall no longer apply to Puerto Rico if a joint resolution approving the recommendation of the Puerto Rican Government is enacted. Sets forth procedures for consideration of such joint resolution.

Authorizes the Governor of Puerto Rico to enter into international agreements to promote the international interests of Puerto Rico as authorized by the President.

Details procedures for agencies to follow with respect to rulemaking and in carrying out their duties. Provides for judicial review of such rulemaking decisions. Excludes any rule issued relating to legislative matters within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Finance or the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Directs the officials of the Departments of State and Transportation to seek the advice of appropriate officials of Puerto Rico when negotiating any air transportation agreements which would affect air traffic to or from Puerto Rico.

Amends the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act to maintain present law with respect to Puerto Rico's special trade arrangements relating to coffee and treatment under the Caribbean Basin Initiative.

Includes Puerto Rico as an insular area for purposes of provisions for the consolidation of Federal grants to such areas. Excludes any programs established or operated under the Social Security Act or the Food Stamp Act of 1977 from such a grant consolidation for Puerto Rico.

Sets forth procedures for distribution of certain entitlement benefits to individuals under the Food Stamp program.

Requires the heads of Federal agencies to consult with the Governor of Puerto Rico as to whether there are special circumstances or qualifications which should be considered in making appointments to specified positions. Requires the President, prior to nominating any person to serve in Puerto Rico whose appointment requires the advice and consent of the Senate, to consult with the Governor as to whether such circumstances or qualifications should be considered in deciding on a nomination. Makes consultation requirements inapplicable with respect to U.S. armed forces, Coast Guard, and law enforcement agency positions.

Establishes the Office of Senate liaison for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. States that the purpose of such office shall be to facilitate the exchange of information between the Senate and the Puerto Rican Government. Authorizes appropriations for such Office.

Directs the Secretary of State to establish a Passport Office for the Caribbean in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Directs the Secretary and the Attorney General to consult with Puerto Rico's Governor to determine what administrative actions can be taken to expedite the processing of visas. Requires the Secretary and Attorney General to report to the Congress on such consultations by March 15, 1993.

Sets forth provisions with respect to antitrust laws and the development of voluntary guidelines designed to alleviate the negative impact of violence, sexually explicit material, and illegal drug use in telecast material and to promote local programming in Puerto Rico.

Directs the President to report to the Congress on seven specified Federal properties. Requires such report to include an assessment of: (1) the Federal need for each property; (2) the costs and/or benefits of disposal of each property; and (3) the comments of the Puerto Rican Government regarding each property. States that, unless the President finds that there is a national interest which requires continued Federal ownership, such properties should be transferred to Puerto Rico.

Establishes the San Juan National Historic Site Advisory Commission. Requires the Commission to regularly advise the Secretary of the Interior on the operation, management, and administration of the San Juan National Historic Site. Waives the renewal provision of the Federal Advisory Committee Act with respect to the Commission. Requires the Commission to report annually to the Secretary and specified congressional committees.

Revises the application of the Puerto Rico and possession tax credit to domestic corporations that derive a portion of gross income from the active conduct of a trade or business within a possession of the United States.

Reduces the amount of taxes and customs duties covered into the Puerto Rican treasury according to a specified schedule following ratification of this Act.

Continues current social welfare benefit programs in Puerto Rico during the first calendar year following ratification for commonwealth. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, beginning on January 1 of the second calendar year after such ratification, to withhold payments to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, under specified provisions of the Social Security Act, unless certain defined conditions are met. Establishes procedures for the operation of other entitlement programs after Puerto Rico becomes a Commonwealth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
S.244 - 102nd Congress (1991-1992): Puerto Rico Status Referendum Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Puerto Rico Status Referendum Act - Title I - Requires an island-wide referendum to be held in Puerto Rico in which voters will be presented a choice of three status options for Puerto Rico as follows: (1) statehood; (2) independence; or (3) commonwealth. Specifies a date or time period during which such referendum must occur.

# data[].attributes.body
Since 1902, after the United States took over Puerto Rico it was decided that it would be a bilingual area of Spanish and English. While congress was considering Puerto Rico receiving statehood a vote was taken and it was decided that Puerto Rico's official language would only be Spanish. The law forbids discrimination against those who speak other languages They wished to maintain their original language to keep close ties to their background as well as ensure they could join the union if they chose to do so.

# data[].attributes.headline
1994 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

# data[].attributes.subject
1994 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

# data[].attributes.body
The North American Free Trade Agreement established a free-trade zone in North America. It was signed in 1992 by Canada, the US and Mexico, and went into effect on January 1, 1994. It allows companies to ship goods to those countries tax free, attempting to generate economic growth in all three countries. It is the most important feature in the commercial relationship between the US and Mexico. Labor Unions in the US oppose NAFTA because they think it caused a loss in jobs. In 2020, NAFTA was replaces by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement which contains more trade protectionism and is supposed to protect jobs in the US.

# data[].attributes.headline
1994 -- California Prohibits Undocumented Immigrants from Accessing Education and Healthcare 

# data[].attributes.subject
1994 -- California Prohibits Undocumented Immigrants from Accessing Education and Healthcare 

# data[].attributes.body
California's proposition 187 blocked undocumented immigrants from accessing non-emergency public healthcare, elementary, middle and high school education, and public colleges and universities. It additionally required the state to report any undocumented immigrants to immigration authorities. Due to legal concerns, California did not implement the proposition into law, and in 1997 it was ruled unconstitutional. The proposition was also called "Save Our Cities" as many protesters blamed illegal immigration for high rates of unemployment. Thousands of protesters walked the street during the vote, calling the proposition anti-immigrant. Though it never came into law, the proposition and the vote showed the political divide within California.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1998, the state of California passed Proposition 227 with over 60% of the vote, which restricted many multi-year programs in English education to only one year of learning English. It meant to accelerate the curriculum of Limited English Proficiency students and put more pressure on schools to improve the program, but ended up eliminating bilingual education in some schools altogether. This affected the over 3 million students enrolled in bilingual programs at the time. Hispanic parents were divided on this issue, whether it would accelerate their assimilation, or eliminate much-needed support, provided through many years of learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
2000 Elián Gonzalez, age 5, survives on an inner tube 3 miles from the Florida coast after his mother and her boyfriend had escaped Cuba on a boat with 14 refugees on a 17 foot storm, most of whom drowned in a storm.   Elián was brought ashore and released to his great-uncle who lived in Miami’s Little Havana neighborhood.   Elián’s father, still in Cuba, demanded his son’s return and this led to an international dispute over the status of minor refugees from Cuba.

# data[].attributes.subject
2000 Elián Gonzalez, age 5, survives on an inner tube 3 miles from the Florida coast after his mother and her boyfriend had escaped Cuba on a boat with 14 refugees on a 17 foot storm, most of whom drowned in a storm.   Elián was brought ashore and released to his great-uncle who lived in Miami’s Little Havana neighborhood.   Elián’s father, still in Cuba, demanded his son’s return and this led to an international dispute over the status of minor refugees from Cuba.

# data[].attributes.body
When Elián Gonzalez was 5, he, his mother, and her boyfriend tried to emigrate to the US and settle down in Miami, Florida. His mother and her boyfriend seemed to have drowned with a group of 14 refugees after a terrible storm. Elián survived and was found in an inner tube very close to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The coast guard scooped him up after two fishermen found him. While he was in Miami he was released to his great-uncle Lázaro Gonzalez. Eliáns father was not happy with this and actually talked with Fidel Castro about getting his son back. There were a lot of custody battles over Eliån between Fidel and the US government and eventually Elián became a symbol. This custody tug of war was so difficult that it actually became an international issue and the Spanish foreign minister even asked for Eliáns return to Cuba, and credited it to the international law. For Cubans, immigration is different than with other spanish speaking countries because of the wet feet, dry feet policy which basically allows Cubans a fast track to becoming a US citizen that is not afforded to other groups of people. After a long battle and political ramifications, Elián was sent back to Cuba to live with his father, stepmother and three brothers. One political ramification that can be attributed to this was Al Gores loss in the 2000 presidential election, many Republicans did not like the way that he handled this situation thus he lost a lot of their support.

# data[].attributes.headline
2000 - Mass protests in the United States against the Vieques Agreement

# data[].attributes.subject
2000 - Mass protests in the United States against the Vieques Agreement

# data[].attributes.body
The events leading up to the actual protests start in 1947, when the U.S. Navy set up a training base on the small island of Vieques, Puerto Rico. Around 2/3 of the residents were evicted from their homeland, while the rest lived in constant fear of falling victim to U.S. Navy bombs during military exercises. The actual event that instigated the mass protests was the killing of David Sanes, a Puerto Rican security guard. These protests continued for years, before President George W. Bush finally ordered the U.S. Navy to withdraw from Vieques in 2003. While the military withdrew from Vieques, the longlasting impact that the Navy had on the environment and economy was not something that could be fixed in a few years.

# data[].attributes.headline
2003 - Hispanics are declared the largest minority group in the US

# data[].attributes.subject
2003 - Hispanics are declared the largest minority group in the US

# data[].attributes.body
In 2003 after the 2000 U.S. Census data showed Hispanics had passed the Black community in population size. The Black population had only risen about 1.5% but the Hispanic population had risen by about 4.7%. This had been predicted by experts for a long time and the data proved itself during the 2003 Census. Signifying a change in the way race had to be examined in America. Race can no longer be looked at as Black or White, there was a whole another race of people who had to be accounted for during conversations about race and when dealing with race.

# data[].attributes.headline
2003 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

# data[].attributes.subject
2003 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

# data[].attributes.body
ICE is formed as a new branch in the U.S. government. ICE was created as a response to keeping out people who may endanger the country (this is after 9/11)

# data[].attributes.body
The Minutemen Project was an organization that sought to monitor the illegal immigration activity at the United States-Mexico border. They believed that the government failed to fight against "foreign invasion" and wanted stricter border control along with additional immigration law enforcement. In 2005, they had over 1,200 volunteers to carry out a border watch where they counted and scared migrants approaching the border. In 2006, they also helped influence the cancellation of a program sponsored by the Humane Borders and the Mexican government to supply 70,000 maps to migrants to help their entry into the United States.

# data[].attributes.headline
2005 -- US House of Representatives passes a bill  on immigration

# data[].attributes.subject
2005 -- US House of Representatives passes a bill  on immigration

# data[].attributes.body
H.R. 4437 is passed that seeking to impose criminal penalties on “aliens” who illegally enter the country. This bill also required employers to verify employment eligibility by confirming legal status of prospective employees and to construct fences along the US-Mexico border. A bill under the pretense of "Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control" seems to be a direct block towards Mexicans and immigrants.

# data[].attributes.headline
2006 -- National Day of Action on Immigration Reform

# data[].attributes.subject
2006 -- National Day of Action on Immigration Reform

# data[].attributes.body
A nationwide day of protest surrounding immigration reform occurs in 39 states. The largest of these were in Washington, Los Angeles, Dallas and Phoenix, with millions attending overall across the country. These protests were largely in response to H.R. 4437, legislation that would make illegal immigrants felons and increase penalties for illegal immigration.

# data[].attributes.headline
2008-- Freedom Tower, known as "Ellis Island of the South", designated as a National Historic Landmark in Miami

# data[].attributes.subject
2008-- Freedom Tower, known as "Ellis Island of the South", designated as a National Historic Landmark in Miami

# data[].attributes.body
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy enacted the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, which assisted many Cubans fleeing here for political asylum away from Fidel Castro's oppressive regime during the Cold War. Although assistance centers for this program were opened up throughout the country, the Freedom Tower in Miami is the most important symbol of this period and the Cuban exodus story because of the large numbers of refugees being processed through the station. For many across this country, it is a symbol of hope and of democracy's responsibility to accept all who are fleeing oppression.

# data[].attributes.body
On May 26th, 2009, Sonia Sotomayer is appointed as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court under the Obama administration, becoming the first every Latinx member of the Supreme Court. She has been recognized particularly for her work in landmark cases such as King v. Burwell which questioned whether the Affordable Care Act should continue or not. She would be one of the six to uphold this critical component. Another landmark case she worked on was Obergefell v. Hodges, which was responsible for legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states.

# data[].attributes.headline
2010-- SB 1070: A legacy of fear, divisiveness, and fulfillment

# data[].attributes.subject
2010-- SB 1070: A legacy of fear, divisiveness, and fulfillment

# data[].attributes.body
SB 1070 (Arizona Senate Bill 1070) is an Arizona Immigration Law that allows Arizona police officers to demand for “papers” of individuals who they suspect are undocumented. It also allows officers to arrest the undocumented individual without a warrant and charge them with state crime. This policy largely impacts immigrants that take work without having documents, making them more vulnerable to SB 1070. Because of this, many immigrant parents in Arizona are taken away from their children similar to the events occurring at the border.  In addition, this legislation makes it much easier to detain undocumented immigrants and reinforces a culture of anti-immigration. Some people may believe that laws like SB 1070 are needed to ensure their safety, contributing to the negative impressions and stereotypes about immigrants.

# data[].attributes.headline
2010 -- The DREAM Act Dies in the Senate

# data[].attributes.subject
2010 -- The DREAM Act Dies in the Senate

# data[].attributes.body
The DREAM Act, standing for Development, Relief, and Education of Alien Minors would protect those living in the US for five years since before they turned 16. It would provide these children a pathway to citizenship if they attended college or joined the military. The vote largely fell along party lines, however a handful of democrats voted against it. It had been created 10 years before and had been blocked in the past by filibusters. They were most likely concerned about the upcoming 2012 elections, but their votes could have given this bill the majority's support. The bill was just reintroduced this week, but, counting Vice President Harris, the senate makeup is the same, but it is a bipartisan bill being reintroduced by Lindsey Graham and 🤬 Durbin.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2011, the Georgia General Assembly passed Bill 87 and governor Nathan Deal signed it into law. This anti-illegal immigration legislation includes mandates such as that Georgia businesses with more than 10 employees use E-Verify, a website created by the US Department of Homeland Security, to check the eligibility of prospective workers. It also sets a maximum punishment of up to 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for undocumented workers found guilty of using fake identification. The Bill is very harsh and inconsiderate of undocumented immigrants and their contributions to the economy, furthering the many hardships they face in immigrating and living within the United States

# data[].attributes.body
The Arizona v United States court case ruled against the enactment of SB1070, a legislative act passed two years prior which permitted police officers the right to search undocumented immigrants. Four provisions within the Arizona act were considered unconstitutional and did not line up with the federal government's immigration policies. While the first, second, and fourth provisions were preempted by the government as they undermined federal law, police were still allowed to verify the legal status of immigrants. Although this court case struck down the question of local state authority holding their own policies regarding immigration, its ultimate decision still allowed police officers to search immigrants for ID and verification which makes racial profiling still as prevalent as ever. Police officers still looked at race or ethnicity as one of the main factors of "reasonable suspicion" in order to search the immigrants.

# data[].attributes.body
The “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents,” or DAPA is an executive ordered signed by Obama that allowed the parents of US citizens to stay in the US for a period of three years, and they could reapply after those 3 years. This gave people work permits and gave them enough status that they would not be deported. Unfortunately this program is no longer active because the Trump Administration rescinded it in 2017 because it was seen as “unconstitutional”. DAPA was a very important step for immigrants because it allowed parents to be able stay with their children in the US and have a better life. Without it parents can be deported and separated from their children. This is relevant now because the Biden administration has said they want to improve upon immigration in this country, and this program could be reinstated or even made better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Had DAPA been implemented, the Migration Policy Institute estimates that it could have applied to around 3.7 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. In order to be eligible for the program, undocumented immigrants must have been the parents of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident as of November 20, 2014. They also had to have continually resided in the U.S. since before January 1, 2010 and could not possess a criminal record. With these stipulations, Obama hoped to prevent around 4 million parents from being deported, while also helping them to secure legal work in the U.S.

The program is not to be confused with DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which allows select undocumented immigrants who illegally entered the U.S. as minors to attend school and obtain a work permit. The program, founded in 2012 by the Obama administration, has served around 750,000 undocumented immigrants since its inception. While the Trump administration has not taken any steps to rescind DACA, Trump has said he is working on a new policy pertaining to the program's members. "They shouldn't be very worried," Trump told ABC News in January. "I do have a big heart. We're going to take care of everybody." In addition to the termination of DAPA, Thursday marks the 5th anniversary of DACA's establishment in the U.S.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Aria Bendix is a frequent contributor to The Atlantic, and a former editorial fellow at CityLab. Her work has appeared on Bustle and The Harvard Crimson.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Had DAPA been implemented, the Migration Policy Institute estimates that it could have applied to around 3.7 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. In order to be eligible for the program, undocumented immigrants must have been the parents of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident as of November 20, 2014.

# data[].attributes.body
El Paso, a predominantly Hispanic town near the Mexican border in Texas and about the size of Boston, underwent a tragic, hate-driven mass shooting on August 3rd of 2019. The shooter was a white supremacist who drove specifically to a Walmart in the town to target Mexicans, and he ultimately killed 23 people while wounding 23 others. One of the worst attacks on Hispanic people in US history, this reflects the ever-growing threat of far-right extremism and anti-immigrant rhetoric from Trump and his allies, which demonized migrants to an extreme. The shooter, currently at trial, posted a manifesto beforehand which cites a white nationalist theory called "The Great Replacement" and used language similar Trump, although he specifically stated that Trump should not be blamed for his actions. The shooting has shown the extent of white hatred in the US and the continuation of white supremacy's most violent manifestations well into the present.

# data[].attributes.headline
2020--The US Supreme Court prevented the Trump administration from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program

# data[].attributes.subject
2020--The US Supreme Court prevented the Trump administration from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program

# data[].attributes.body
DACA started out under the Obama administration in 2012; it allowed individuals brought to the U.S. as children to be given temporary legal status if they currently attend or graduated from a U.S. high school and if they passed a background check. However, Trump sought to abolish the program in 2017, but it was blocked by lower courts, and in 2020, the Supreme Court has as well. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his report that it wasn't about the policies in the program, but rather, the unaddressed issues in the 🤬. The problem was also that the Trump administration did not take responsibility for abolishing DACA and instead pushed the blame on the Obama administration for passing an "illegal and unconstitutional" program. Roughly 650,000 people were enrolled, with the vast majority from Mexico and Central America, and another 700,000 were eligible. Though the program was able to live on, no new applications were actually accepted under Trump, and it wasn't until the end of 2020 that applications were taken in again. This program is extremely important as it protects immigrants from being deported. In 2021, Biden issues a memorandum to "preserve and fortify DACA," giving a clear contrast between the current immigration reforms and Trump's anti-immigration and pro-deportation rhetoric against those south of the border and signaling a new hope for the Latinx community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated at 6:35 p.m. ET
In a major rebuke to President Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the administration's plan to dismantle an Obama-era program that has protected 700,000 so-called DREAMers from deportation. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion.

Under the Obama program, qualified individuals brought to the U.S. as children were given temporary legal status if they graduated from high school or were honorably discharged from the military, and if they passed a background check. Just months after taking office, Trump moved to revoke the program, only to be blocked by lower courts - and now the Supreme Court.

Roberts' opinion for the court was a narrow but powerful rejection of the way the Trump administration went about trying to abolish the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," Roberts wrote. "The wisdom of those decisions is none of our concern. Here we address only whether the Administration complied with the procedural requirements in the law that insist on 'a reasoned explanation for its action.' "

In 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions simply declared DACA illegal and unconstitutional. "Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch," he said at the time. Sessions argued that the program should be rescinded because he said it was unlawful from the start.

But, as Roberts observed, the attorney general offered no detailed justifications for canceling DACA. Nor did the acting secretary of homeland security at the time, Elaine Duke, who put out a memo announcing the rescission of DACA that relied entirely on Sessions' opinion that the program was unlawful.

As Roberts noted, Duke's memo didn't address the fact that thousands of young people had come to rely on the program, emerging from the shadows to enroll in degree programs, embark on careers, start businesses, buy homes and even marry and have 200,000 children of their own who are U.S. citizens, not to mention that DACA recipients pay $60 billion in taxes each year.

None of these concerns are "dispositive," Roberts said, but they have to be addressed. The fact that they weren't addressed made the decision to rescind DACA "arbitrary and capricious," he wrote. And none of the justifications the administration offered after the fact sufficed either, including a memo issued by then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen. That memo, said Roberts, was essentially too little, too late. An agency must defend its action based on the reasons it gave at the time it acted, he said, instead of when the case is already in court.

Roberts made clear that an administration can rescind a program like DACA, and indeed immigration experts don't disagree with that bottom line. The problem for the administration was that it never wanted to take responsibility for abolishing DACA and instead sought to blame the Obama administration for what it called an "illegal and unconstitutional" program.

The chief justice didn't address that issue. Instead, says immigration law professor Lucas Guttentag, the justices in the majority seemed to be saying, "Why should the court be the bad guy" when the administration "won't take responsibility" for rescinding DACA by explaining clearly what the policy justifications for the revocation are?

Joining the Roberts opinion were the court's four liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Sotomayor wrote separately to say that while she agreed that rescinding DACA violated the law for the procedural reasons outlined by the chief justice, she would have allowed the litigants to return to the lower courts and make the case that rescinding DACA also amounted to unconstitutional discrimination.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the principal dissent, accusing Roberts of writing a political rather than a legal opinion. Joining him were Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, with separate dissents also filed by Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

In a tweet, Trump blasted the decision as one of the "horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court." The president also asked: "Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn't like me?"

These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2020

Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, on the other hand, celebrated the decision, saying in a statement, "The Supreme Court's ruling today is a victory made possible by the courage and resilience of hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients who bravely stood up and refused to be ignored."

In an interview with NPR's Mary Louise Kelly, Ken Cuccinelli, the Trump administration senior official who oversees immigration and citizenship at the Department of Homeland Security, said Trump is considering his options.

"I do expect you will see some action out of the administration," he said, adding: "He is not a man who sits on his hands."

While the decision gives DACA and its hundreds of thousands of recipients a lifeline, the issue is far from settled. The court decided that the way Trump went about canceling DACA was illegal, but all the justices seemed to agree that the president does have the authority to cancel the program if done properly.

As for the immediate future of DACA, the consensus among immigration experts is that there is not enough time for Trump to try again to abolish the program before January. Cornell Law School professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, the author of a 21-volume treatise on immigration law, says, "It's not remotely possible before the election. But if [Trump] is reelected, he almost certainly will try again" to cancel DACA.

For now, though, more individuals eligible for DACA status may be able to apply. Marisol Orihuela, co-director of the Worker & Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School, notes that the administration has refused to accept new applications since 2017. But she thinks that will change now. "Our understanding is that the program is restored to what it was in 2012 when it went into effect," she says.

Guttentag, who teaches immigration law at Yale and Stanford University, says if Trump is not reelected, a new administration could repair "much of the damage" that he says has been inflicted on immigrants during the Trump administration. But, he adds that the immigration system is "completely shattered" and needs "fundamental reform."

Politically, Thursday's decision played out as expected, with anti-immigration groups condemning the decision and DACA recipients jubilant and relieved.

But aside from the president, lots of Republicans are relieved as well. If Thursday's decision had gone the other way, the pressure on congressional Republicans to pass legislation protecting the DREAMers would have been intense.

DACA is an astonishingly popular program, with recent polls showing up to 85% support among Democratic and independent voters, and huge majorities among Republican voters as well.

Indeed, 200 major corporations filed briefs in the Supreme Court supporting the DACA recipients. Among them was Microsoft, which was a plaintiff in one of the cases that made it to the Supreme Court, and its president, Brad Smith.

"There are more than 30,000 DACA registrants working in the health space alone. We've needed these people more than we do today," he said. "Every time I meet with them, I have the same reaction. We are lucky as a country to have them."

Not all DACA critics are against the substance of DACA. Instead, some oppose the fact that Obama, frustrated with congressional inaction, put the program into effect unilaterally through executive order. Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute warns of unforeseen consequences if presidents can create new programs that future administrations will struggle to unwind.

"This raises profound issues of executive power and in effect sets out a ratchet whereby statutory changes can be enacted by presidential executive order but can only be rescinded through jumping through various administrative law hoops," he said.

At the end of the day, the man of the hour is Chief Justice Roberts. Amid a politicized and polarized society, he has repeatedly tried to portray the court as apolitical. He sees the growth of organizations on the hard right like the Judicial Crisis Network, and on the hard left like Demand Justice, each trying to stack the court with like-minded justices or pack the court by expanding the number of justices.

"What these decisions underscore is we have a chief justice who's plainly working hard to demonstrate to the American people that the court, unlike the other two branches, is doing its job and doing its best," said Harvard Law School professor Richard Lazarus, who has known the chief justice for decades. "He wants the American people to believe there is a thing called law and justice. His job is to apply it."

( Read the decision here.)
Emmett Witkovsky-Eldred contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Rules For DREAMers, Against Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The decision is a dramatic victory for immigration advocates and gives a new lease on life for the so-called DREAMers, immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

# data[].attributes.headline
2021 - Steven Spielberg's West Side Story

# data[].attributes.subject
2021 - Steven Spielberg's West Side Story

# data[].attributes.body
When the original West Side Story movie came out in 1961, it was revolutionary for its time. Featuring a Puerto Rican protagonist with a sympathetic story, it made waves, and when Rita Moreno, a Puerto Rican actress, won an Oscar for her role in the film, the world looked on in awe. Now, 60 years later, the film does not look so god. Many of the Puerto Rcan characters were played by white actors in brown face. And so, when Steven Spelberg deicded to direct a remake of the movie, it was clear that adding true diversity to the cast would be of the utmost importance. Every Latinx character in the film is played by a Latinx actor, including many Puerto Rican actors. Maria, the show's Puerto Rican protagonst, is played by Rachel Zegler, who is Colombian-American. Zegler's casting will show young Latinx people everywhere that they can be great, especially given that she was not famous beforehand and instead was picked from over 30,000 young Latinx women who submitted tapes to the casting call. Rita Moreno will also return in the film, albeit in a different role. The film was originally set to premiere December, 2020, but will now be released December 10, 2021 due to the COVID 19 pandemic.