President Ronald Reagan, Proclamation 5510 (July 2, 1986).
 See Matthew Spalding, Jessica Zuckerman, James Jay Carafano, Immigration Reform Needs Problem-Solving Approach, Not Comprehensive Legislation, Issue Brief No. 3833, The Heritage Foundation (January 17, 2013), available at http://report.heritage.org/ib3833; James Jay Carafano, Amnesty Legislation Still the Wrong Answer for Responsible Immigration Reform, The Heritage Foundation, WebMemo No. 3327 (July 27, 2011), available at http://report.heritage.org/wm3327.
 Matthew Spalding, ed. America’s Opportunity for All, The Heritage Foundation (2013), p. 112, available at http://opportunity.heritage.org/americas-opportunity-for-all/.
 See, for example, Edwin Meese III and Matthew Spalding, Where We Stand: Essential Requirements for Immigration Reform, Backgrounder No. 2034, The Heritage Foundation (May 10, 2007), available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2007/pdf/bg2034.pdf.
 See, for example, Edwin Meese III and Matthew Spalding, The Principles of Immigration, Backgrounder No. 1807, The Heritage Foundation (October 19, 2004), available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2004/pdf/bg1807.pdf; Meese and Spalding, Permanent Principles and Temporary Workers, Backgrounder No. 1911, The Heritage Foundation (March 1, 2006), available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2006/pdf/bg1911.pdf; Meese and Spalding, Where We Stand: Essential Requirements for Immigration Reform, Backgrounder No. 2034, The Heritage Foundation (May 10, 2007), available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2007/pdf/bg2034.pdf; Matthew Spalding, Jessica Zuckerman, and James Jay Carafano, Immigration Reform Needs Problem-Solving Approach, Not Comprehensive Legislation, Issue Brief No. 3833, The Heritage Foundation (January 17, 2013), available at http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/ib3833.pdf; and Jessica Zuckerman, Senate Immigration Reform: Another Misguided Call for Comprehensive Legislation, Issue Brief No. 3845, The Heritage Foundation (January 30, 2013), available at http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/ib3845.pdf.
 Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977) (citations omitted) (quoting Oceanic Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320, 339 (1909) and Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210 (1953)). Recently, in Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2498 (2012), the Supreme Court identified the source of the power of Congress to control the admission or exclusion of aliens as follows: “The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s constitutional power to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,’ and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.” (citations omitted).
 Congress has, for example, specified criminal penalties for entering the U.S. at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers (8 U.S.C. 1325(a)) and for re-entering the U.S. without prior permission after having been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed (8 U.S.C. 1326(a)). The U.S. government can prosecute aliens who commit either of these crimes, subject to a statute of limitations that generally requires their prosecution within five years after the date of the crime (18 U.S.C. 3282(a)). There is no federal statute making an alien’s mere presence within the United States, without authorization to remain, a crime. So, for example, an alien who entered lawfully on a temporary visa, and remains in the country after expiration of the visa, is in the country unlawfully, but is subject only to civil exclusion proceedings and not criminal prosecution, unless the alien engages in some other way in criminal conduct. Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2505 (2012) (“As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States.”); Ortego-Melendres v. Arpaio, 836 F. Supp.2d 959, 971 (D. Ariz. 2011) (“Being present in the country without authorization to remain ‘is only a civil violation.’ . . . An alien who ‘overstays a valid visa or otherwise remains in the country after the expiration of a period authorized by the Department of Homeland Security,’ therefore, although he may be subject to deportation, has violated no criminal statute.”), affirmed 695 F.3d 990, 1000 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We have long made clear that, unlike illegal entry, mere unauthorized presence in the United States is not a crime.”).
 The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” That constitutional protection extends to all persons present in the United States, including aliens. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001) (“It is well established that certain constitutional protections available to persons inside the United States are unavailable to aliens outside of our geographic borders. But once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” (citations omitted)).
 Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution grants to the President the “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” When a President grants pardons to a class of people for an offense they have in common, the grant is often referred to as an “amnesty,” although the term is an informal one without legal consequences separate from the term “pardon.” To illustrate, in his Christmas Day proclamation in 1868, President Andrew Johnson granted “to all and every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion, a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war . . . .” The Supreme Court concluded that the word “amnesty” used in the Johnson proclamation was surplusage, as “[a]ll the benefits which can result to the claimant from both pardon and amnesty would equally have accrued to him if the term ‘pardon’ alone had been used in the proclamation of the President.” Knote v. United States, 95 U.S. 149, 152-53 (1877).
 U.S. ex rel. Brazier v. U.S. Commissioner of Immigration at Port of New York, 5 F.2d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 1924) (“They were not, and could not be, pardoned from deportation. A pardon is for a crime . . .; inter alia, it avoids or terminates punishment for that crime, but deportation is not a punishment, it is an exercise of one of the most fundamental rights of a sovereign . . . , a right which under our form of government is exercised by legislative authority.”) Under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), “[a]n alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General, is inadmissible.” And, under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(A) “[a]ny alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable.” Further, under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B) “[a]ny alien who is present in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of the United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 1201(i) of this title, is deportable.” For aliens lawfully in the United States who are convicted of certain crimes, such as crimes involving moral turpitude, that make them subject to removal, a federal statute (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(vi)) provides that a presidential pardon for those convictions waives removal based on those convictions.
 Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 601 (1896) (“The act of congress in question, securing to witnesses immunity from prosecution, is virtually an act of general amnesty, and belongs to a class of legislation which is not uncommon either in England (2 Tayl. Ev. § 1455, where a large number of similar acts are collated) or in this country. Although the constitution vests in the president ‘power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment,’ this power has never been held to take from congress the power to pass acts of general amnesty, and is ordinarily exercised only in cases of individuals after conviction, although, as was said by this court in Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 380, ‘it extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.’”).
 8 U.S.C. 1255a.
 8 U.S.C. 1160. See McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 483 (1991).
 Ruth Ellen Wasem, “Unauthorized Aliens Residing in the United States: Estimates Since 1986,” Congressional Research Service, Report No. RL33874 (December 13, 2012), p. 1.
 Report to Accompany H.R. 3810 of the 99th Congress, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Report 99-682 (Part 1), Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, (July 16, 1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 5649, 5653, 1986 WL 31950.
 132 Cong. Rec. S16879-01, 1986 WL 788854 (October 17, 1986) (colloquy between Senator Gramm of Texas and Senator Simpson of Wyoming during consideration of conference report on IRCA).
 Ruth Ellen Wasem, “Unauthorized Aliens Residing in the United States: Estimates Since 1986,” Congressional Research Service, Report No. RL33874 (December 13, 2012) (Summary).
 Michael Hoefer, Nancy Rytina, and Bryan Baker, “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2011,” Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security (March 2012), available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2011.pdf.