Where We Stand: Essential Requirements for Immigration Reform
America has been good for immigrants, and immigrants have been
good for America. Our nation's principles and its system of
equal justice and economic freedom invite all those seeking
opportunity and the blessings of liberty. The immigrants that come
to America have always played an important role in our
history-strengthening our social capital, deepening our national
patriotism, and expanding our general economy.
Over the past
several decades, however, immigration policy has become
confused and unfocused to the point that there is widespread and
deepening concern that our current policies regarding immigration
are not working. Poorly designed policies and weak enforcement of
immigration laws have led to disturbing vulnerabilities in our
security. Millions of illegal immigrants in our country belie the
core principle of the rule of law and belittle the legal
naturalization process. Continued large-scale immigration without
effective assimilation threatens social cohesion and America's
civic culture and common identity.
At the beginning
of this national debate, The Heritage Foundation described the
principles that should inform immigration policy, suggested some
considerations for policymakers, and proposed several first
steps in developing such a policy. Since then, several papers
have been published applying these principles to particular aspects
of the policy debate. These principles have guided and will
continue to guide Heritage Foundation analysis of this question,
and they should guide lawmakers and policymakers in evaluating
particular proposals that come before them.
With Congress and
the Administration set to consider once again a major immigration
reform package, it is necessary to restate these principles and
clarify how they should apply to the current debate. For the sake
of immigrants and American citizens alike, any meaningful and
long-term policy concerning immigration must be consistent with
these principles and, thus, with the highest ideals and long-term
good of the United States.
The First Priority:
America's immigration system must be a national strength and not a
Every nation has
the right, recognized by both international and domestic law, to
secure its borders and ports of entry and thereby control the goods
and persons coming into its territory. Americans have always been
and remain a generous people, but that does not mitigate the duty
imposed on the United States government to know who is entering, to
set the terms and conditions of entry and exit, and to control that
entry and exit through fair and just means.
It is the
responsibility of Congress and the President to ensure that
immigration policy and immigration policy enforcement serve our
national security. From a national security perspective,
preventing illegal entry and reducing unlawful presence in the
United States is an imperative. An uncontrolled immigration system
encourages the circumvention of immigration laws and is a clear
invitation to those who wish to take advantage of our openness to
cause this nation harm.
The United States must have a complete
security system- from the point of origin, in transit, at the
border, and within the United States-that strengthens all of the
activities, assets, and programs necessary to secure America's
borders. Immigration legislation should create an integrated
security system that addresses border infrastructure and links
border management to all activities involved in cross-border travel
and transport, from issuing visas and passports to internal
investigations and the detention and removal of unlawful persons.
Over the past ten years, the United
States has tripled border spending and manpower as border
incursions have skyrocketed. An immigration bill should direct the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to secure the border and then
give it the operational flexibility to achieve that objective.
Appropriate new technologies-unmanned vehicles, cameras, sensors,
and satellites- should be utilized for this purpose. Wiser
investments would include funding cost-effective initiatives
that would rapidly increase security at the border, such as
using state defense forces and private-sector contractors.
federal support at the border.
To secure the border,
immigration reform legislation should allocate about $400 million
per year over the next three years out of the projected spending on
homeland security grants. Congress must resist the temptation to
turn these grants into earmarked pork-barrel programs and
instead insist that federal support for border security policing be
strategically employed as a short-term bridging program to
secure the border immediately.
Immigration reform should include
implementation of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 and the REAL ID Act of 2005. These laws do
not create a national identification card, but rather establish
that when key identification materials, such as driver's licenses
(and the documents used to obtain them like birth
, are issued at any level of government
and used for a federal purpose (such as security checks before
boarding commercial passenger planes), these documents must meet
national standards of authenticity. Such documents should be issued
only to persons living lawfully in the United States.
prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or fraud, and to enhance privacy
protections, the laws also establish standard security features
concerning identification cards. Congress should appropriate the
money to help states establish systems to meet requirements under
the REAL ID Act.
A system for recording entry and exit into and out of
the United States is a necessary component of responsibly
managing control of the nation's borders. The
Administration should implement the congressionally mandated
US-VISIT program as quickly and efficiently as possible.
security checks. No individual should be allowed to enter the
United States unless that individual has passed health, criminal,
and national security background checks prior to entry.
Insist on a
national security trigger. While recognizing that a
temporary worker program would contribute to the task of policing
borders and coastlines, a comprehensive plan for integrated
border security must be implemented and operational control of the
border must be achieved prior to initiating any new programs that
substantially increase permanent or temporary workers in the
United States. This determination should be made by the
Administration, subject to legislative concurrence.
Uphold the Rule of
Principle: The rule
of law requires the fair, firm, and consistent enforcement of the
law, and immigration is no exception.
Congress and the
President must take credible steps to reduce illegal immigration in
both annual and absolute terms, and that requires enforcement.
Indeed, recent efforts by the Bush Administration demonstrate how
targeted enforcement could have a significant effect on illegal
immigration into the United States. Federal, state, and local law
enforcement must be allowed to enforce immigration law
consistent with their legal authority. Federal and state
governments must provide law enforcement with the necessary
resources to enforce and prosecute these laws, and the federal
government should expand programs to assist states and territories
in their immigration law enforcement efforts.
Credible workplace enforcement
requires steep employer penalties that will serve as an
effective deterrent against violating immigration laws. Without
creating a new federal bureaucratic program, the largest
employers of unlawful labor and the most egregious violators of
immigration laws should be targeted for enforcement. To secure the
cooperation of businesses, the tax code should be amended to
remove the tax deductibility of wages paid to unauthorized
Employers currently verify an
employee's right to work by submitting a Social Security number for
payroll tax purposes, yet millions of the numbers submitted by
employers on earnings reports do not match Social Security
Administration master records. Immigration reform must allow
sharing of Social Security no-match information in a way that will
protect privacy rights while allowing the DHS to target employers
who intentionally violate the law by hiring illegal workers
and giving the government incorrect information.
state and local enforcement authority.
Under current law,
state and local police have the authority to arrest aliens for
criminal and civil violations of law. A provision in the
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 would have
restricted state and local police to arresting aliens for criminal
violations of immigration law only, not for civil violations.
As a practical matter, such a provision would discourage
police departments from playing any role in immigration
enforcement. Most police officers (indeed, most lawyers) do not
know which immigration violations are criminal and which violations
are civil, and this lack of knowledge hinders the effectiveness of
local law enforcement of federal immigration law.
criminal enforcement. Any targeted enforcement efforts should
focus with special intensity on finding and deporting illegal
immigrants who have committed crimes in the United States or
who have fled after having been ordered to be deported. Immigration
reform should establish strong penalties for absconding from the
enforcement of United States law. Absconding after receiving
an order to appear or a removal order should be a punishable crime,
and the second such offense should be a felony. Under these
reforms, such individuals would thereafter be ineligible for legal
state and local law enforcement.
Immigration reform should
expand Section 287(g) of the Immigration Naturalization Act of
1996, which allows the Department of Homeland Security and
state and local governments to enter into assistance compacts.
State and local law enforcement officers governed by a Section
287(g) agreement must receive adequate training and operate under
the direction of federal authorities. In return, they receive full
federal authority to enforce immigration law, thereby shifting
liability to the federal government and providing the officers with
additional immunity when enforcing federal laws.
the problem worse. What immigration policy needs-as any
new program requires-is a clear and determined strategy to enforce
the rules. Any program that is vague or unenforceable or that
allows temporary visitors or workers to disappear when their legal
status expires would mean a larger illegal immigrant community-and
a larger public policy problem. Immigration reform in general
and a temporary worker program in particular must go
hand-in-hand with a much stronger approach to violations of
our immigration laws. And before proceeding, policymakers must
have the political will to insist on the rule of law.
Amnesty Is Not the
who enter, remain in, and work in the country illegally are in
ongoing and extensive violation our immigration laws.
condoning such violations by granting amnesty increases the
likelihood of further illegal conduct. Failure to enforce
immigration laws is deeply unfair to the millions who obey the law
and abide by the administrative requirements to enter the country
legally. Disregarding the intentional violation of the law in
one context because it serves policy objectives in another
undermines the rule of law. The just and reasonable requirement for
correcting illegal immigration, in addition to other
appropriate penalties, is repatriation, after which individuals may
apply for legal entry to the United States without partiality or
Amnesty is an act by which past acts are forgotten and
expunged from the record for future purposes. In the context of
immigration, amnesty is most commonly defined as granting legal
status to a defined group of individuals who are unlawfully
present in the
States; that is, overlooking or forgetting the ongoing illegal
presence in the United States in favor of adjusting that presence
to a legal status. The granting of legal status is still an amnesty
even if it is conditional and not automatic or does not lead to
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986-which
legalized individuals who had resided illegally in the United
States continuously for five years by granting temporary resident
status adjustable to permanent residency-is the most prominent
example of an immigration amnesty policy. Additional conditions
included a criminal background check, payment of application fees,
acquisition of English-language skills, a civics requirement, and
signing up for military service. Although passed in good faith,
that law failed to curb the influx of illegal immigration.
Likewise, the Comprehensive Immigration and
Reform Act of 2006 (CIRA) proposed an amnesty for almost all
This is underscored by that legislation's
fundamental similarity to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1986. CIRA would have placed those who have resided illegally in
the United States for five years on a similar path to citizenship.
As before, amnestied individuals would have to pay a fine, pass a
background check, and meet admissibility criteria.
The only fair and reasonable way to resolve
this dilemma without granting amnesty is to insist that individuals
who are unlawfully present in the country return to their countries
of origin and then apply, in line and on par with other applicants,
for legal entry to the United States. Any program that does not
require unlawfully present individuals to leave the United
States and reenter through legal means if they wish to work or
reside here will never satisfy the tenets of good immigration law
and would provide an incentive for future violation of the
Trust for Voluntary Return.
If the United States had
operationally secure borders and reasonable legal opportunities for
visas, green cards, and access to a true temporary worker program,
many of those who are unlawfully present would leave
willingly, return to their countries of origin, and take the steps
that would enable them to come back to the United States to live
and work legally. To assist them, immigration reform legislation
should establish a National Trust for Voluntary Return-a program of
financial assistance to help illegal aliens return to their home
Not a Shortcut. Illegal aliens who voluntarily leave the United
States, register with authorities before leaving through the
US-VISIT program, have no criminal record, and agree to abide by
the terms and requirements of the laws of the United States can
then apply for legal entry to the United States as lawful visitors,
temporary workers, or legal residents without partiality
or prejudice. Individuals who are in the United States illegally
should receive no such benefits or advantages while they remain in
the United States.
nation has the responsibility- and obligation-to determine its own
conditions for immigration, naturalization, and citizenship.
Congress has the
constitutional responsibility "[t]o establish an uniform Rule of
Naturalization" that sets the conditions of immigration and
citizenship and to ensure the fairness and integrity of the
legal process by which immigrants enter the country legally and, in
many cases, become permanent residents and fellow citizens.
The United States welcomes those who come here in accord with the
law. Individuals who are not citizens do not have a right to
American citizenship without the consent of the American people as
expressed through the laws of the United States. With that consent,
however, any individual of any ethnic heritage or racial background
could become an American.
That process is
possible because, in addition to the generous principles of free
government, this nation has always had a deliberate and
self-confident policy that assimilates immigrants and new
American citizens, teaching our common language and educating them
about this country's political principles and the responsibilities
of self-government. Strengthening such a policy requires
clarifying rather than blurring the distinction between
citizens and non-citizens and strengthening rather than weakening
the naturalization process and the conditions of patriotic
In order to foster political integration
and strengthen common principles, immigration reform should
support programs to promote civics and history education among
immigrants and encourage English language acquisition. An amendment
to this effect was included in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Act 2006, and it should be included as a baseline in any new reform
That proposal amounted to a voucher for
adult legal immigrants seeking citizenship to take English courses
from qualified institutions and provided grants for organizations
to teach civics and history to immigrants. Immigration reform
should also ensure that the citizenship test focuses on core civic
knowledge and concepts and should both codify and teach the
meaning of the Oath of Allegiance.
the common language.
Clear communication, mutual
deliberation, public education, and common civic principles
demand that citizens share one common language. Immigration
reform legislation should therefore recognize English as the
national language of the United States; clarify that, unless stated
explicitly in law, there is no right to receive
communications, documents, or services in a language other
than English; and override Executive Order 13166, which was issued
by President Clinton and has not yet been rescinded by the Bush
According to the Citizenship Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment, those who are born here must also be
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The popular
concept of "birthright citizenship"-that anyone born while in
the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen-is historically
and legally inaccurate. Only a complete jurisdiction of the
kind that brings with it an exclusive allegiance is sufficient to
qualify for the grant of citizenship. Immigration reform
legislation, especially if it includes a temporary worker program,
must correct this misunderstanding. In order to do so, Congress
should reassert its constitutional authority to clarify this
expatriation. A renewed emphasis on the terms of citizenship
also demands rethinking and clarifying, both in our political
rhetoric and within the law, the limits of citizenship. That
includes the extreme circumstances under which naturalized citizens
and native-born citizens who violate those terms can lose their
citizenship. These circumstances are described by
existing law; immigration reform should expand the
circumstances for relinquishing citizenship to include acts of
terrorism or participating in a terrorist group or
organization and should adjust the presumption of evidence
concerning the intention of relinquishing citizenship under these
Immigration reform should insure that the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has the
capacity to handle current and future immigration to the
United States effectively and efficiently, with a better model to
pay for services and funding to transform USCIS to work as part of
an interagency effort to control legal immigration.
integrity of the legal immigration process. Immigration reform
must ensure that the vital process of naturalization and
assimilation is not overwhelmed either by the sheer number of
new immigrants or by the size and complexity of any new worker
program. A temporary visa program must not be allowed to
become a way to circumvent the rules and procedures of the
naturalization process, thereby creating de facto
permanent residents without equivalent legal status. To the extent
that the need is for a larger permanent working population in
the United States, the policy preference ought not to be workers
who are temporary, but rather assimilated immigrants who understand
and are willing to take on the long-term obligations of
citizenship. In general, immigration policy should not be used
to alter the political balance in the United States.
Immigration policy should be a fiscal and economic benefit not only
for immigrants, but also for the nation as a whole.
and families that immigrate to the United States come seeking
economic opportunity. Unlike previous generations, however, a
generous welfare, education, and health system with generous
eligibility draws poor and low-skill immigrants into the ranks
of the underclass rather than encouraging self-reliance and
financial independence. Policymakers must ensure that the
interaction of social services and immigration policy does not
expand the welfare state and impose significant costs on American
society. Overall, immigration policy should support a growing
economy and bring economic benefit to all Americans.
Government provides a generous system of benefits and
services to both the working and the non-working poor. While
government continues its massive efforts to reduce overall poverty,
immigration policy in the United States tends to produce results in
the opposite direction, increasing rather than decreasing the
poverty problem. Immigrants with low skill levels have a high
probability of poverty and of receiving benefits and services that
drive up governmental welfare, health, social service, and
fiscal costs and benefits.
The fiscal impact of immigration
varies strongly according to immigrants' education levels. While
highly educated immigrants, on average, make positive fiscal
contributions, the overall fiscal impact of low-skill immigrants is
negative. On average, low-skill immigrant households receive
$19,588 more in immediate benefits than they pay in taxes each
year-nearly $1.2 million in lifetime costs for each such
Immigration reform must take into account
the large and foreseeable costs associated with importing
millions of low-skill immigrants and the likelihood that such an
immigration policy will vastly expand the welfare state. For the
same reasons, a policy that grants amnesty to current illegal
aliens would have a very significant fiscal cost.
high-skill immigration. The legal immigration system should be
altered so that it substantially increases the proportion of new
entrants with high levels of education and skills in demand by U.S.
firms. Under current law, foreign-born parents and siblings of
naturalized citizens are given preference for entry visas. The
current visa allotments for family members (other than spouses and
minor children) should be eliminated in lieu of increasing quotas
for employment-based and skill-based entry, proportionately.
In general, immigration policy should encourage high-skill
immigration and avoid immigration that will increase poverty and
impose significant new costs on taxpayers.
fiscal burden. Although immigration policy is primarily a
federal responsibility, it is the state and local governments that
mostly deal with the practical implications of that policy. The
fiscal tab picked up by the states for illegal immigrants who
receive various local services and impose local costs amounts to an
unfunded mandate placed on states by a federal government that
is not enforcing its own laws. Immigration reform should
decrease existing burdens and not impose any new such burdens on
state and local governments.
Beyond immediate reforms, our long-term
national strategy should implement policies and measures to
strengthen the governance and infrastructure of developing
countries to slow migration into the United States. We should
encourage labor-exporting nations to reform their laws and
economies to provide avenues of social mobility that are now
absent in their societies. The U.S. government should
encourage its hemispheric neighbors to liberalize their economies,
reduce burdensome business regulations, ensure equal treatment of
all citizens under the law, and thereby spread prosperity more
A Real Temporary
temporary worker program must be temporary, market-oriented, and
A balanced and
well-constructed temporary worker program should diminish the
incentives for illegal immigration by providing an additional
option for legal temporary labor and, in combination with
other reforms, reduce over time the current population of
illegal aliens. This would foster better national security and
serve a growing economy. Such a temporary worker program would
be a valuable component of a comprehensive immigration reform
enthusiasm for such a program in theory must be moderated by
serious concerns not only about the failures of such programs in
our past and in other countries, but also regarding how a new
program would likely be implemented and operate in practice. An
ill-defined and poorly constructed temporary worker program
would make the current problems of immigration policy even worse.
temporary. A temporary worker program should be temporary
and of defined and limited duration. If participation is renewable,
there should be a substantive period of time in the home country
between renewals and a limit on the numbers of renewals.
The objective should be to allow for a
reliable and market-driven source of labor and for that labor to be
provided by a dynamic and rotating temporary workforce.
Facilitation of the program should not be micromanaged by
government agencies. A private-sector approach to managing and
facilitating workers would more efficiently integrate the
workforce and allow the market to serve economic needs and
provide economic benefits.
An employment sponsorship system is a
flexible alternative to government management of the supply of
and demand for migrant labor. Existing undocumented workers
should find it relatively easy to get sponsorship with current
employers, so leaving the country, applying, and reentering would
neither discourage their compliance nor come at the expense of
other legal migrants.
family status. Temporary workers in the United States should be
encouraged to establish long-term residences, create stable
households, and build families in the country of their
permanent citizenship, but they should not be allowed to bring
spouses or families to the United States during the program.
Consistent with the temporary nature of the program, the children
born in the United States of non-U.S. citizen parents during their
program participation should not automatically become U.S.
citizens. If these questions are not resolved, and if the
return period between renewals and departure after program
completion is not enforced, a temporary worker program will create
powerful conditions of permanency and lead to significant fiscal
Any temporary worker program requires
bilateral agreements between the United States and the home nations
of program participants. Such agreements would strengthen
cooperation concerning verification of identity and background
security; establish clear agreement to abide by (and encourage
participants to abide by) the rules of the program and United
States immigration laws; facilitate the return of those nations'
citizens at the end of program participation; and reward
nations that develop robust programs that assist in
significantly reducing the unlawful population in the United
States. Such agreements are also an opportunity to develop
additional incentives for temporary workers, such as allowing
program participants to receive credit in their home
countries' retirement systems.
Immigration reform must include measurable
benchmarks and goals that must be met in order to proceed with the
implementation of a temporary worker program. These program
triggers must cover border security (such as a biometric
identification registry, verification of identity and criminal
security check with the participants' home country, mandatory
workplace verification, and a system of secure documents); internal
enforcement (the vast majority of employers should be compliant
with worker identification processes, and Social Security
information must have been shared with DHS); and program
infrastructure (a single integrated border services agency must be
in place, working, and appropriately tested for reliability
and accuracy). These various determinations should be made by
the Administration and subject to legislative concurrence.
A temporary worker program should
provide economic incentives for participants to abide by the rules
of the program and return home at the end of their permitted
tenure. These incentives should affect both the participant (in the
form of withheld income or investment accounts) and the employer
(in the form of a bond to control the flow of workers and promote
compliance). In both cases, the dollar value of the bond would be
repaid after the migrant exited the U.S. but would be forfeited if
the migrant went into the black market economy.
temporary workers should not be eligible for means-tested welfare,
Social Security, or Medicare, and employers (in the form of a
surety bond) should be required to cover medical costs of workers
while they in the United States.
numerical caps. Even allowing for relatively larger numbers of
individuals to participate in the early years of any worker
program on the assumption that some number currently here will
leave and reenter with temporary legal status, there must be a
hard numeric cap on overall program participation in each year.
This numerical cap should include spouses and children; that is,
the total number of individuals given temporary legal status under
this program. In future years, the cap must also include temporary
workers that violated the terms of the program and remained in the
adjustment. If the program is to be a truly temporary worker
program, individuals should not be allowed to adjust legal status
while on the program; that is, it should be a non-adjustable visa.
Otherwise, this is not a temporary program, but a transitional
program to permanent status. If participants wish to enter a
separate track for permanent residency, the individual must
apply separately for a pre-existing category of adjustable visas.
Participation in the temporary worker program should not
advantage such an application (except as evidence of
law-abidingness, for instance) and should not fulfill residency
requirements for citizenship. Indeed, violation of the terms of the
worker visa should prevent the participant from being eligible
for other visas, legal permanent residency, or citizenship.
Immigration legislation should not create a large,
open-ended, or ill-defined program in order to meet a demand for
temporary workers. A pilot program, perhaps based on the expansion
and streamlining of existing non-immigrant work visa programs, is a
reasonable and prudent policy prior to launching a new program
of any significant magnitude. Likewise, the United States already
has several programs (including an unrestricted visa
classification for temporary or seasonal agricultural workers)
that could be streamlined and adapted for granting other
non-immigrant work visas. Immigration legislation should also
restructure and increase existing programs for highly skilled
foreign workers, such as the H-1B program.
In the mid-1980s,
Congress advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants.
President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of
what was then a relatively small population. In exchange for
allowing aliens to stay, border security and enforcement of
immigration laws would be greatly strengthened-in particular,
through sanctions against employers who hired illegal
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 did not solve our
illegal immigration problem. Indeed, the lessons of that policy
experiment are clear. From the start, there was widespread
document fraud by applicants. Unsurprisingly, the number of people
applying for amnesty far exceeded projections, and there proved to
be a failure of political will in enforcing new laws against
After a six-month
slowdown that followed passage of the legislation, illegal
immigration returned to normal levels and continued unabated.
Ultimately, some 2.7 million people were granted amnesty. Many
who were not granted amnesty stayed anyway, forming the nucleus of
today's illegal population. Twenty years later, the Comprehensive
Immigration Reform Act, passed by the Senate in 2006, proposed
another amnesty while giving short shrift to border security and
failing to strengthen enforcement of immigration laws.
CIRA also had
additional problems arising out of the sheer numbers involved. By
themselves, the amnesty provisions would have covered some 10
million illegal immigrants, which would have created the
largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years.
This concern was outweighed by a quintupling of the rate of
legal immigration into the United States that added up to more than
60 million immigrants over the next 20 years. Numbers of this
magnitude would be a dramatic policy change, with vast but largely
unaddressed implications for social and economic stability and
Congress and the
President now have another opportunity to craft immigration reform
legislation. Given the stakes involved, they should proceed
carefully, fully cognizant of the immediate and long-term
implications of their actions. They must rise above the politics
and policy debate of the moment and develop a clear, comprehensive,
meaningful, and long-term policy concerning immigration,
naturalization, and citizenship.
support comprehensive reform if and when they are confident that
the proposed immigration reforms fully and honestly comprehend
these core principles. At the same time, they should oppose and, if
necessary, the President should veto any reforms or reform packages
that do not comport with these principles, are not in the best
interests of the United States, and are inconsistent with the great
traditions and compassionate practices of America's ongoing
experiment in ordered liberty.
Edwin Meese III is
Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of
the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Matthew Spalding,
Ph.D., is Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American
Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
 Edwin Meese III
and Matthew Spalding, "The Principles of Immigration," Heritage
Foundation Backgrounder No. 1807, October 19, 2004.
 See, for
instance, Edwin Meese III, James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., Matthew
Spalding, Ph.D., and Paul Rosenzweig, "Alternatives to Amnesty:
Proposals for Fair and Effective Immigration Reform," Heritage
Foundation Backgrounder No. 1858, June 2, 2005, and Edwin
Meese III and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., "Permanent Principles and
Temporary Workers," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No.
1911, March 1, 2006.
 James Jay
Carafano, Ph.D., "Safeguarding America's Sovereignty: A 'System of
Systems' Approach to Border Security," Heritage Foundation
Backgrounder No. 1898, November 28, 2005.
 James Jay
Carafano, Ph.D., "Senate Immigration Plan Fails to Deliver
Comprehensive Border Security," Heritage Foundation WebMemo
No. 1080, May 16, 2006.
 James Jay
Carafano, Ph.D., and David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., "State and Local
Law Enforcement's Key Role in Better, Faster, Cheaper Border
Security," Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum No.
1015, November 22, 2006.
 James Jay
Carafano, Ph.D., "The Real Importance of REAL ID: A Strategy for
Saving the Secure Driver's License Initiative," Heritage Foundation
Executive Memorandum No. 1024, May 4, 2007.
 James Jay
Carafano, Ph.D., "A Visa Reform Plan for Congress," Heritage
Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 1001, May 25, 2006; see
also James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., Helle C. Dale, and James Dean,
"Improve the Visa Waiver Program with Exit Checks for New
Participants," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1400, March
 James Jay
Carafano, Ph.D., "Immigration Enforcement and Workplace
Verification: Sensible Proposals for Congress," Heritage Foundation
Executive Memorandum No. 999, April 4, 2006.
 Kris W.
Kobach, "Terrorist Loophole: Senate Bill Disarms Law Enforcement,"
Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1092, May 24, 2006.
 James Jay
Carafano, Ph.D., and Laura Keith, "The Solution for Immigration
Enforcement at the State and Local Level," Heritage Foundation
WebMemo No. 1096, May 25, 2006.
 Meese et
al., "Alternatives to Amnesty: Proposals for Fair and Effective
 Edwin Meese
III, "An Amnesty by Any Other Name…," The New York
Times, May 25, 2006.
 Kirk A.
Johnson, Ph.D., "The Senate Compromise on Immigration: A Path to
Amnesty for Up to 10 Million," Heritage Foundation WebMemo
No. 1030, April 6, 2006.
 Meese et
al., "Alternatives to Amnesty: Proposals for Fair and Effective
 James Jay
Carafano, Ph.D., "Immigration Enforcement: A Better Idea for
Returning Illegal Aliens," Heritage Foundation Executive
Memorandum No. 1011, September 7, 2006.
Spalding, Ph.D., "Making Citizens: The Case for Patriotic
Assimilation," Heritage Foundation First Principles No. 3,
March 16, 2006.
Strengthening American Citizenship Act, proposed by Senator Lamar
Alexander (R-TN) and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).
 English as
the National Language Amendment (S.A. 4064), proposed by Senator
James Inhofe (R-OK), was approved by a vote of 62 to 35 as part of
 John C.
Eastman, Ph.D, "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright
Citizenship," Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum No. 18,
March 30, 2006. See also Edward Erler, "Citizenship," in Edwin
Meese III, Matthew Spalding, and David Forte, eds., The Heritage
Guide to the Constitution (Washington: Regnery Publishing,
2005), pp. 384-386.
J ames Jay
Carafano, Ph.D., "Better, Faster, Cheaper Border Security Requires
Better Immigration Services," Heritage Foundation
Backgrounder No. 2011, February 28, 2007.
Rector, "Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United
States: A Book of Charts," Heritage Foundation Special
Report No. SR-9, October 25, 2006.
Rector, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S.
Taxpayer," testimony before the Subcommittee on Immigration,
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, May 1,
Rector, "Amnesty and Continued Low-Skill Immigration Will
Substantially Raise Welfare Costs and Poverty," Heritage Foundation
Backgrounder No. 1936, May 16, 2006; see also Meese and
Spalding, "The Principles of Immigration."
Johnson, "Mexico's Economic Progress Can Ease Migration Woes,"
Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1022, March 31, 2006.
 In general,
see Meese and Spalding, "Permanent Principles and Temporary
Workers." See also Tim Kane, Ph.D., and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.,
"The Real Problem with Immigration…and the Real Solution,"
Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1913, March 1,
 Tim Kane,
Ph.D., "Immigration Reform or Central Planning?" Heritage
Foundation WebMemo No. 1088, May 19, 2006.
 Tim Kane,
Ph.D., "Sponsorship: The Key to a Temporary Worker Program,"
Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 1022, February
 Meese and
Spalding, "Permanent Principles and Temporary Workers."
 Kane and
Johnson, "The Real Problem with Immigration…and the Real
 Kirk A.
Johnson, Ph.D., "How Immigration Reform Could Help to Alleviate the
Teacher Shortage," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No.
1884, October 5, 2005, and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., and Tim Kane,
Ph.D., "'Recapturing' Visas: A Sensible Temporary Fix for America's
Foreign Worker Problem," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No.
886, October 19, 2005.
 Meese, "An
Amnesty by Any Other Name…"
"Amnesty and Continued Low-Skill Immigration Will Substantially
Raise Welfare Costs and Poverty."
Rector, "Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal
Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years," Heritage Foundation
WebMemo No. 1076, May 15, 2006, and "Immigration Numbers:
Setting the Record Straight," Heritage Foundation WebMemo
No. 1097, May 26, 2006, which considers amendments to the original
legislation that would reduce the 20-year estimate to 60 million