Yu Furukawa | News contributor
Introduction
In the presence of a massive influx of undocumented migrants, countries sometimes implement an amnesty, granting legal immigration status to these migrants. This blog examines the potential advantages and disadvantages of such amnesty programs and discusses how they can be addressed.
This blog suggests that
Implementing an individual-based application can help prevent informal employment and exploitation by employers.
A temporary amnesty that only offers short-term legal status for staying and working will just lead migrants to revert to an undocumented status. Providing a pathway to permanent residence after amnesty can prevent them from ending up in that situation.
Combining amnesty with other policies is necessary to address other factors of undocumented migration.
Minimizing the welfare state burden caused by amnesty can be achieved through vocational training.
Requirements need to be designed in a way that controls the number of applications.
It is important to be mindful and proactive about the administrative capacity needed to process amnesty applications.
Amnesty is not a monolithic concept and can be classified into various types.
de-facto vs one-shot : Amnesty can be defined as part of regularization or legalization, which can be classified mainly into two categories. One is de-facto regularization, which refers to the automatic provision of permanent residency to immigrants after they have lived in a country for a certain duration of years (Levinson, 2005a). The other is known as “one-shot” or ”one-off”, which targets a limited number of immigrants. It often targets particular categories of people by establishing specific residence and work requirements (Levinson, 2005a). It also often establishes a precise timeline with application deadlines. This blog will mainly focus on the latter, the “one-shot” amnesty.
Types of permits : Some amnesty yields permanent residence, while others provide temporary residence with a limited duration (Levinson, 2005a). Some amnesty programs also issue temporary work permits.
Beneficiaries : Who counts as “irregular migrants”? They can be classified based on the intersection of entry, stay, and work status. The most common types include “Persons who never had a regular status because they entered illegally and could not find a way of regularizing their status”, “Persons who entered on a tourist visa and working irregularly”, and “Persons who lose their residence status because they no longer satisfy the conditions that initially granted the permit” (Spencer and Triandafyllidou, 2022). While there are various other types of 'irregular migrants,' such as children whose parents also lack legal status, this blog will focus on the three mentioned above, as they are the primary targets of amnesty worldwide, with some exceptions.
The following section examines the advantages and disadvantages of amnesty , as well as the questions that governments need to address before implementing amnesty.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Well-being and Psychological Effects on regularized migrants
Amnesty can have a positive impact on the mental health of regularized migrants. Undocumented migrants often experience mental health challenges because of the harsh working conditions in the informal sector, restricted access to housing and healthcare, and fear of policing, detention and deportation (Benach et al., 2011; Qureshi, Morris, and Mort, 2020). However, obtaining legal immigration status can alleviate some of these psychological burdens to some extent, as showcased by some empirical studies (Patler and Laster Pirtle, 2018; Refle et al., 2023).
Impacts on Migrants’ Economic Integration
Another advantage of amnesty for its beneficiaries is its potential to facilitate economic integration into the host society. Deiana, Giua, and Nisticò (2022) showed that migrants regularized by the amnesty are more likely to secure formal sector employment a decade later, as compared to those who were ineligible for amnesty.
However, poorly designed amnesty may fail to reduce informal employment and even generate further informal employment among undocumented migrants. This is because (i) employers are unwilling to pay higher wages to legalized workers and demand more undocumented migrants or want legalized migrants to still work informally (Levinson, 2005b); (ii) migrant or familial networks enable migrants to obtain informal jobs more easily; (iii) working in the formal economy is not always viable for migrants because of a mismatch between their skills and the skills required for available jobs, as well as limited job opportunities and stagnant economic conditions, even after they are technically allowed to work formally. Thus, unless amnesty is well-designed, it is probable that regularized migrants will continue or choose to work in the informal sector.
To make regularization appealing and beneficial to undocumented migrants, governments can consider implementing several policy tools. Firstly, it is important not to limit the range of jobs available to them. It is further advisable for governments to provide job seeking assistance and vocational training to enhance their job opportunities. Furthermore, governments should carefully consider the timing of the program in order to avoid a time when the economy is stagnant and the high unemployment rate is high.
When an amnesty application is tied with employer’s assistance or sponsorship, amnesty might look unattractive and daunting for employers as well. This is because keeping migrants undocumented allows employers to pay lower wages than the minimum wage and avoid paying social contributions typically required for legal employees, in addition to the costs associated with the application. As a result, some undocumented migrants may struggle to find a sponsor. Even worse, employers might exploit undocumented migrants. They might make migrants pay an application fee that is supposed to be paid by employers, sell labor contracts in exchange for application assistance (Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, 2022). Thus, involving employers in the application process can result in adverse outcomes for migrants. Therefore, governments should consider implementing a migrant-independent application process rather than an employer-tied one. For example, the amnesty program called “Operation Papyrus”, Geneva in Switzerland, allowed undocumented migrants to apply for residence permits without the support of their employer, only requiring them to ‘self-declare’ their current working relationship with employers (Bouvier, 2020). In doing so, governments opened up the amnesty opportunities for migrants who are in exploitative relationships and cannot seek application support from employers.
Impact on “Irregular” Migration Deterrence : Further “Irregular” Migration?
It is also important to consider how amnesty impacts the undocumented migration landscape. One of the primary arguments against amnesty is that it can serve as a pull factor for further undocumented migration. However, many of these arguments lack counterfactual analysis (Walsh and Sumption, 2023), leaving out other factors influencing undocumented migration. It is possible that undocumented migration would have increased even without an amnesty program. The reality is more complex in the sense that there might be other factors. For example, Orrenius and Zavodny (2003) found that the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which granted amnesty to nearly 2.7 million undocumented migrants in the United States (Levinson, 2005b; Walsh, 2020), did not alter long-term patterns of undocumented migration from Mexico. This suggests that other factors, such as lowered wages in Mexico and the depreciation of the US dollar, are driving undocumented migration.
However, there are two things to bear in mind about the impact of amnesty in relation to undocumented migration. Firstly, amnesty which grants only temporary permits may lead to an
increase in the number of undocumented migrants because migrants may choose to remain even after the permits expire, anticipating future amnesty (Reyneri, 2004; Levinson, 2005b). If an amnesty program only provides temporary legal status, regularized migrants are likely to return to undocumented status again. When their permit expires, they tend to choose to remain without legal status and wait for the next amnesty rather than return voluntarily to their countries (Levinson, 2005a). As a result, they may repeatedly experience psychological stress and a lack of well-being due to their (re)undocumented status, as discussed in section 3-1.
Conversely, immediately granting permanent residence can lead to a high volume of applications and draw public criticism. Therefore, it is necessary for governments to carefully decide the types of status and pathway that should be given. One compromise is to establish a pathway to permanent residence based on criteria such as the duration of work or residence after the amnesty, language skills, and the degree of social and economic integration (Levinson, 2005b; Desmond, 2021).
Secondly, amnesty is just a makeshift policy that temporarily reduces the current number of undocumented migrants in the country without addressing other variables of future undocumented migration. It does not deal with the structural factors driving undocumented migration into countries, so it is questionable whether amnesty has a positive impact on curbing the number of undocumented migrants in the future (G. Papademetriou, 2005). Therefore, if governments seek to reduce the number of undocumented migrants, what is necessary is to explore complementary policies addressing structural factors driving contemporary and future undocumented migration. Examples include establishing and expanding legal migration channels and fostering cooperation with origin and transit countries (G. Papademetriou, 2005).
Impact on Economy
Amnesty may cause competition between native workers and newly regularized migrants. The aim of amnesty is to reduce the size of informal employment and generate a massive workforce in the formal sector, which could potentially compete with native workers. In reality, however, amnesty programs do not necessarily negatively impact native workers in the formal sector, as they often fail to send migrants into formal employment (Bahar, Ibáñez, and Rozo, 2021). Regularized migrants may find it unattractive to get a formal job if there is an additional cost or if it is unclear if they can get a formal job, even if they are permitted to work in the formal sector.
Another economic concern about amnesty is its financial burden on native taxpayers. Some argue that regularized migrants may obtain access to the welfare state, including education, health, housing, and welfare benefits, which can be a burden on native tax papers (Migration Watch UK, 2019). While migrants’ net fiscal contributions through taxes may somehow offset these costs, it is reasonable to assume that they are less likely than other migrants to make significant fiscal contributions since regularized migrants are more likely to face long-term unemployment, as Gordon, Scanlon, Travers, and Whitehead (2009) showed. As a result, they tend to be more dependent non welfare benefits (Casarico, Facchini and Frattini, 2016).
Therefore, it is necessary to consider to what extent this burden can be mitigated by their economic contribution. One possible way to alleviate the burden is by partially restricting the welfare benefits to them. For example, governments can provide fewer housing benefits to regularized migrants compared to the native population. However, these restrictions are often criticized by humanitarian organizations because these benefits play a pivotal role in migrants’ integration. .Therefore, the extent to which it has to cut the benefit should be carefully calculated based on the revenue migrants can generate, such as tax revenue or health insurance.
Another strategy is to directly enhance migrants' economic contribution. This includes implementing vocational and language training for them. It is the less competent skill sets of regularized migrants that make them more reliant on welfare benefits. By directly improving their skills and language ability, the government can enhance their probability of employment in well-paid and highly skilled jobs.
Taken together, to evaluate the overall economic impact of amnesty, it is necessary to consider how many regularized migrants will end up working in the formal sector and how much fiscal contribution they will make.
Administrative Burden
Another disadvantage is that amnesty can cause administrative chaos. A lack of preparation, such as staff shortages, can lead to backlogs, slow processing, and even a downward revision of the final number of migrants actually regularized, as exemplified by Portugal’s 1992 regularization program, which only regularized 38,000 migrants out of 80,000 applicants (Levinson, 2005b).
To effectively implement amnesty and handle the expected number of applicants, it is necessary to ensure that governments have a sufficient capacity to handle amnesty-related administrative tasks. This involves mobilizing and training enough staff (Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, 2022; Baldwin-Edwards and Kraler, 2009). It is also desirable to collaborate with NGOs and immigrant communities who are familiar with the size of migrants residing in local communities. Moreover, while many amnesty programs have technical requirements, such as proof of residence and duration of stay, not all criteria follow this pattern, and the judgment of officials is necessary. However, administrative discretion can lead to heightened bureaucratic costs.
The administrative burden can be also affected by how strict the requirements for amnesty are. Although setting excessively stringent criteria can lead to the unwanted exclusion of undocumented migrants, setting requirements can help control the number of applications within administrative capacity. Here are two requirements to consider in particular:
Employment-related requirements : employment-related requirements have an impact on the number of applications. Stricter requirements may present obstacles for migrants who are considering applying. Whether it is formal or informal employment, proof of employment can be one of the requirements. While proof of sponsorship by employers could also be a potential requirement, involving employers in the application system may lead to further exploitation of undocumented migrants, as mentioned earlier.
Duration Requirements: Establishing a requirement for applicants to have resided in the country for a certain period of time can help governments to control the number of regularization to some extent. If the amnesty occurs shortly after a massive influx of undocumented migrants and they are the target for the program, a substantial number of applications will be expected. Conversely, setting the relatively lengthy residence requirement can reduce the number of applications. The restrictiveness of residence requirements should be determined based on the anticipated number of applications. Many amnesty programs have historically used a specific date as a reference point (Levinson, 2005b). If migrants entered the countries after this date, they would not be eligible for the amnesty program. There is no ideal minimum duration requirement because immigration situations vary between counties. However, a method used by JCWI (2021) could potentially be useful to determine an appropriate duration. They conducted sampling and surveys of undocumented migrants. While it is difficult to capture all undocumented migrants, sampling is possible. This approach can provide data on the percentages of undocumented migrants residing in the country for various durations. This allows to estimate the threshold duration needed to regularize different percentages of undocumented migrants.
Conclusion
Amnesty can have a positive impact on migrants' mental health and economic integration as well as temporary reduction of undocumented migrants. However, poorly designed amnesty programs can result in regularized migrants remaining in informal employment, perpetuating or even increasing the number of undocumented migrants, and creating welfare state burden.
To maximize the advantages and minimize its disadvantages, governments should consider the following aspects. Firstly, to prevent a return to undocumented status or informal employment and to protect migrants from exploitation by employers, it is necessary to conduct vocational training for migrants and adopt an migrant-independent application system. Secondly, to reduce the number of undocumented migrants in the long run, it is important to establish a pathway to permanent residence and combine amnesty with other policy options . Thirdly, in order to minimize the burden on the welfare state, it is important to maximize the economic contribution of regularized migrants through vocational training and language training . Fourthly, to process applications smoothly, it is crucial for governments to control the number of applications by setting appropriate requirements and being aware of administrative capacity.
References
Bahar, D., Ibáñez, A.M. and Rozo, S.V. (2021). Give me your tired and your poor: Impact of a large-scale amnesty program for undocumented refugees. Journal of Development Economics, 151, p.102652. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2021.102652.
Baldwin-Edwards, M. and Kraler, A. (2009). REGINE Regularisations in Europe. International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD).
Benach, J., Muntaner, C., Delclos, C., Menéndez, M. and Ronquillo, C. (2011). Migration and ‘Low-Skilled’ Workers in Destination Countries. PLoS Medicine, 8(6), p.e1001043. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001043.
Bouvier, C. (2020). Geneva: Operation Papyrus regularised thousands of undocumented workers. [online] PICUM. Available at: https://picum.org/blog/geneva-operation-papyrus-regularised-thousands-of-undocumented-workers/ [Accessed 9 Apr. 2024].
Brick, K. (2011). Regularizations in the European Union: The Contentious Policy Tool. [online] Migration Policy Institute. Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/regularizations-european-union-contentious-policy-tool [Accessed 13 Mar. 2024].
Casarico, A., Facchini, G. and Frattini, T. (2016). What Drives the Legalization of Immigrants? Evidence from IRCA. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2724987.
Deiana, C., Giua, L. and Nisticò, R. (2022). Legalization and Long-Term Outcomes of Immigrant Workers. IZA - Institute of Labor Economics.
Desmond, A. (2021). The Possibility for Regularisation in the UK in Light of the New Plan for Immigration. [online] Refugee Law Initiative Blog. Available at: https://rli.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2021/05/28/the-possibility-for-regularisation-in-the-uk-in-light-of-the-new-plan-for-immigration/ [Accessed 18 Mar. 2024].
G. Papademetriou, D. (2005). The ‘Regularization’ Option in Managing Illegal Migration More Effectively: A Comparative Perspective. Migration Policy Institute.
Gordon, I., Scanlon, K., Travers, T. and Whitehead, C., 2009. Economic impact on the London and UK economy of an earned regularisation of irregular migrants to the UK. LSE London, London School of Economics.
Kerwin, D. (2010). MORE THAN IRCA: US Legalization Programs and the Current Policy Debate. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/legalization-historical.pdf. Migration Policy Institute.
Levinson, A. (2005a). The Regularisation of Unauthorized Migrants: Literature Survey and Country Case Studies . [online] Centre on Migration, Policy and Society University of Oxford. Available at: https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/ER-2005-Regularisation_Unauthorized_Literature.pdf [Accessed 14 Mar. 2024].
Levinson, A. (2005b). Why Countries Continue to Consider Regularization. [online] Migration Policy Institute. Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/why-countries-continue-consider-regularization [Accessed 13 Mar. 2024].
Migration Watch UK (2019). An amnesty for illegal immigrants?.
Orrenius, P.M. and Zavodny, M. (2003). Do Amnesty Programs Reduce Undocumented Immigration? Evidence from IRCA. Demography, 40(3), pp.437–450. doi:https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2003.0028.
Patler, C. and Laster Pirtle, W. (2018). From undocumented to lawfully present: Do changes to legal status impact psychological wellbeing among latino immigrant young adults? Social Science & Medicine, [online] 199, pp.39–48. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.009.
Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (2022). Regularisation mechanisms and programmes : Why they matter and how to design them.
Qureshi, A., Morris, M. and Mort, L. (2020). Access denied: The human impact of the hostile environment. Institute for Public Policy Research.
Refle, J.-E., Fakhoury, J., Burton-Jeangros, C., Consoli, L. and Jackson, Y. (2023). Impact of legal status regularization on undocumented migrants’ self-reported and mental health in Switzerland. SSM - Population Health, p.101398. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101398.
Reyneri, E. (2004). Immigrants in a segmented and often undeclared labour market. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 9(1), pp.71–93. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1354571042000179191.
Seltzer, M.G.P., Ellen Percy Kraly, William (2004). IRCA: Lessons of the Last U.S. Legalization Program. [online] migrationpolicy.org. Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/irca-lessons-last-us-legalization-program.
Spencer, S. and Triandafyllidou, A. (2022). Irregular Migration. In: P. Scholten, ed., Introduction to Migration Studies.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (2021). We Are Here Routes To Regularisation For the UK’s Undocumented Population.
Walsh, P. (2020). Irregular migration in the UK. [online] Migration Observatory. Available at: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/irregular-migration-in-the-uk/.
Walsh, P.W. and Sumption, M. (2023). UK policies to deter people from claiming asylum. [online] Migration Observatory. Available at: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/uk-policies-to-deter-people-from-claiming-asylum/
