NEW YORK (AP) – Everyone talks of an imminent immigration reform but they forget that the last one, adopted nearly 30 years ago, is still valid and with open cases.
The so called 1986 amnesty generated a high level of litigation so high that still drags cases almost three decades after its approval and serves as an example for experts and lawyers who are asking the government for a reform written simply and with few restrictions to avoid battles in the courts that cost millions of dollars and left hundreds of immigrants in limbo for years.
“The life of these demands was much longer than anyone expected and much longer than it should have been,” said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute. “It lasted too long. The lesson now is that it is much better and more productive to design a system that is as simple and inclusive as possible,” he added.
In fiscal year 2012 the government has received 21 applications for immigrants interested in adjusting their status through the old reform signed by President Ronald Reagan. Fifteen of them were approved, according to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The figures are from applicants who joined the last action lawsuit against the government to demand to be included as beneficiaries of what is now known as “late amnesty”.
The reason of the demands was the confusion generated by the complex legal language of reform and, among other things, the fact stating that illegal immigrants could regularize their status only if they were in the country before January 1982 and continuously resided since. Many had left the United States some time in that period so that their applications were not accepted.
The lawsuits were many but the collectives who brought groups like the League of United Latin American and Catholic Social Services in 2004, and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project based in Seattle years later, lengthened the time to benefit from the plan.
In the end, nearly three million illegal immigrants to regularize their status achieved with the reform, known as IRCA by its acronym in English (Immigration Reform and Control Act). The plan may be approved in Washington this year could help many of the 11 million immigrants estimated to be living illegally in the United States.
Nobody knows how many immigrants could not benefit from IRCA, which languished in endless legal battles in which the government finally reached an agreement with the plaintiffs and allowed to open a new application deadline. The last was completed in January 2010 and the applications that are now received by government are the cases that proceed after the agreement between the two sides of the legal battle.
“The most important thing in a legislative package is to ensure that it is designed in a way that does not cause unintended consequences, but sometimes these are unknown at the time that the laws are written,” said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center in Washington , an organization that brought some of the demands.
“Now we have learned much about what works and what does not work,” he added. “Those involved in the design of the reform, we want it to be created so that the program is as inclusive as possible and that you we have learned from the lessons of the past.”
The Citizenship and Immigration Services of the government did not respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press.
Experts and immigration attorneys say that both immigration reform plans prepared by the Senate and by President Barack Obama appear to show fewer constraints than the 1986 reform. For example, both indicate that undocumented immigrants who would benefit from the plan would have to be present in the United States since the date the reform comes into force or is filed. The proposals also include the time deadlines for submitting applications.
Edgar Orellana, an immigrant from Guatemala who regularized his immigration status through the 1986 reform, has heard of cases that dragged on too much, though it only took him about two years to receive a permanent residence card.
“For some it was faster and for other it was slower,” said the now 61-year old U.S. citizen who lives in Los Angeles. “I remember feeling very excited when I solved my situation. Gave me courage to keep fighting. I felt part of the country,” he added.
Jan Brown, an immigration lawyer who works in New York, said he represented clients seeking the benefits of the old amnesty until after 2000.
“The immigration laws are very complex,” said Brown. “The law (immigration reform of 1986) was not precise in defining certain issues. The easier and clearer the law, the easier it is to interpret what Congress meant.”
This post is also available in: 
Español (Spanish)
