Updated May 21, 2006
The US has always been a nation of immigrants. Native Americans were themselves migrants. In the 1700s the English settlers feared that the wave of Scots-Irish immigrants would hurt the economy and bring crime and immorality. Actually the Scots-Irish solved a national security problem by increasing the US population enough that it could expand westward. The Irish immigration in the 1840s and arrivals from southern and eastern Europe in the 1880s followed similar patterns. Those already living in the US feared economic and social distress, but the influx of humanity populated the continent, and provided the industrial workers and soldiers needed to establish the US as a global power. The nation is once again caught up in a contentious debate over immigration. The issue has divided the Republican party, threatens to influence the coming congressional election, and exposed racial and ethnic tension.
The Bush Plan(s)
On January 7, 2004 Bush made what the NY Times called his "first major speech" on his plan for immigration reform. Accompanied by members of congress and several cabinet officials, and in the presence of representatives from several Hispanic advocacy groups, Bush spoke from the East Room of the White House.
Many of you here today are Americans by choice, and you have followed in the path of millions. And over the generations we have received energetic, ambitious, optimistic people from every part of the world. By tradition and conviction, our country is a welcoming society. America is a stronger and better nation because of the hard work and the faith and entrepreneurial spirit of immigrants.
Bush's plan proposed:
- To improve border control, consolidate border agencies, increase use of technology, improve cooperation with Canada and Mexico.
- To enact new immigration laws that would "welcome into our country" immigrants who were willing to work jobs that Americans "American citizens are not willing to take."
- Not to "give unfair rewards to illegal immigrants in the citizenship process or disadvantage those who came here lawfully, or hope to do so."
- To "provide incentives for temporary, foreign workers to return permanently to their home countries after their period of work in the United States has expired."
Bush envisioned a "temporary worker" plan that would "match willing foreign workers with willing American employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs." The program would allow workers to remain in the US legally for three years, as long as they had a job. At the end of the three-year period they would be "required to return to their home." Temporary workers who chose to apply for citizenship would not receive any advantage over other applicants. Undocumented workers already in the US could pay a fee to join the temporary worker program.
Bush also mentioned briefly the need to "expand economic opportunity among the countries in our neighborhood" as a way of reducing "the pressures that create illegal immigration in the first place."
A NY Times/CBS poll conducted shortly after Bush's speech found that "two-thirds of those surveyed said immigrants who had entered the country illegally should not be allowed to stay and work in the United States for three years." "There was also little enthusiasm for any increase in immigration, with a plurality saying immigration should be decreased," the Times reported.
Some immigration reform advocates said that Bush's proposal did not go far enough, and criticized the program for deporting workers after three years rather than offering them a permanent work visa. Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, denounced the proposal as little more than amnesty.
The Bush immigration proposals did not feature prominently during Bush's re-election campaign, but resurfaced in 2005 with a national-security emphasis calculated to appeal to conservatives. In October 2005 Bush signed a $32 billion domestic security bill that had big increases for the Border Patrol, declaring "We're going to get control of our borders."
Republican vs. Republican
As Jeff Taylor wrote in the journal Reason in November 2005, "Many conservatives of a populist stripe never heard anything past the words "guest worker." "A guest worker has to work somewhere, you see, and work means a job. A job that an American citizen would otherwise have. This is an absolute article of faith among the immigration reform camp."
The issue exposed a fissure in the Republican party between social conservatives and business conservatives. Calling the Bush proposal "a scandal and a disgrace," social conservative activist Paul Weyrich wrote "On no issue have a Republican administration and a Republican House and Senate more blatantly or more cynically sold out the conservative movement and our country than on immigration." Weyrich:
The next conservatism needs to recognize that when it comes to immigration policy neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are our friends. The Democrats want open borders because most of them are cultural Marxists. The Republicans agree because Wall Street wants cheap labor. The next conservatism should not be in Wall Street's pocket. Our country is more important than their profits.
As the House prepared to consider an immigration bill sponsored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, some Republicans sought to incorporate a bill that Georgia Republican Rep. Nathan Deal had introduced in March 2005. Deal's bill, co-sponsored by 84 members of the House, including leading immigration hard liner Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, would "deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens." The measure had been referred to the House Judiciary committee and then to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, where it stalled.
Many observers noted the significance of the Deal bill in appearing to contradict the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was passed by Congress in 1866. The amendment was designed to override the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case, that people of African ancestry "whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves" could not become citizens. It prevented individual states from limiting the privileges of citizenship or denying to anyone equal protection under the law.
Tancredo argued that the measure would help stop illegals. "People are coming here simply for the purpose of having a child here and then, because they're the anchor, they can have all the family come in on that child's ticket.... There are thousands upon thousands of people who are doing it," Tancredo told reporters. In Tancredo's view the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend that the children of undocumented immigrants would be citizens. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Republican of Miami, FL, disagreed. "I really think the [proposal] is unconstitutional, and I think the Founding Fathers decided that issue 200 years ago," he said.
Tancredo's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment was apparently influenced by the testimony of John Eastman of Chapman University Law School, who testified before the House Immigration, Border Security and Claims subcommittee in September. Chapman cited the case of Yaser Hamdi, born in Baton Rouge, LA, to Saudi parents while his father was working as a chemical engineer for Exxon. As a young adult Hamdi trained with the Taliban in Afghanistan, eventually surrendering to Northern Alliance forces, and was sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as an enemy combatant.
When officials learned that Hamdi was a citizen, he was transferred to the Naval brig in Norfolk, VA. Hamdi petitioned courts for the right of habeas corpus, and the Supreme Court ruled that he had a basis from which to claim the right of due process, and to challenge his detention as an enemy combatant. In his testimony, Eastman, who submitted a brief to the Supreme Court opposing Hamdi's claim, referred to Antonin Scalia's dissenting (minority) opinion in the case as warranting attention. Scalia termed Hamdi not a citizen, but a "presumed citizen,"
Eastman argued that the traditional interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment as conferring citizenship on children born in the US fails to take into account the language that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Toward the end of his testimony Eastman implied more than stated, that citizenship should not apply to the children of immigrants who were in the country illegally because somehow they were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. (Parenthetically, Eastman's use of the Hamdi case as an example appears to provide tenuous support for his argument, as there is no evidence that Hamdi's parents were "enemies of the United States," and Hamdi's association with the Taliban did not begin until nearly twenty years after his birth.)
Critics noted that the language concerning jurisdiction, to which Eastman assigned such importance, is a standard formulation referring to the principles of international law that govern the status of foreign diplomats and their families.
Immigrants and activists rejected the claim that the right of citizenship for children born in the US was a significant factor in immigration, suggesting that the availability of work was much more important. "We've closed over 47,000 cases since we opened our doors in early 1996, and it's never been my understanding that's why a family came here," Cheryl Little of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center told reporters. "They come here to escape political persecution, or to make a better life for themselves -- not to have a U.S.-born-citizen child who can apply for the parent to become a citizen 21 years later."
The immigration bill that eventually passed the House on December 16, 2005 was closer to Weyrich's vision than Bush's. The bill included funds for 700 miles of fence along the US-Mexican border, and required employers to verify their employees' Social Security numbers using a national database. Employers failing to do so would be fined $25,000 per offense. Mandatory minimum sentences were established for immigrants who re-enter the US illegally after deportation, and local law enforcement officials were empowered to enforce federal immigration laws and receive reimbursement.
In crafting the bill, House leaders tried to address the concerns of immigration hard liners like Tancredo without alienating Latino voters whom the Republican party has sought to attract. A guest-worker proposal from Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona never came to a vote, and the proposal denying citizenship to children born on US soil to illegal immigrant parents was also rejected.
The House bill was opposed by an unusual coalition of civil rights, religious, labor, and business groups. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops was among the organizations that expressed concern that the House bill would criminalize their charitable work on behalf of immigrants. Public outcry, however, was initially limited, possibly because there appeared to be significant bi-partisan support in the Senate for a bill sponsored by Sen. John McCain and Sen Edward Kennedy, which combined border security with a guest-worker program.
By early March 2006, however, the picture had changed. On March 10, between 100,000 and 300,000 people marched in Chicago to protest measures that would penalize those who help or employ illegal immigrants. On March 24, 2006, thousands of people in Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Atlanta protested provisions in the House bill that would make it a felony to be an illegal immigrant. On Saturday, March 25, more than 500,000 marched in Los Angeles. The Economist noted that "the demonstrations were bigger than any so far mustered against the war in Iraq."
The Catholic church provided key organizational support to the mass demonstrations, and on March 27, as the Senate Judiciary committee considered a plan that would create a procedure for illegal immigrants eventually to apply for citizenship, members of clergy from several denominations were among several thousand demonstrators in Washington protesting the House immigration bill.
Against that backdrop, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a plan in which undocumented immigrants could apply for citizenship after first paying a $1,000 fine, undergoing a background check to prove that they were employed, waiting six years, and paying another $1,000 fine. The proposal also created a guest-worker program for farm workers, including a way for them eventually to apply for citizenship. Four Republicans and eight Democrats backed the measure, which was seen as substantially consistent with administration proposals.
The committee was facing a deadline set by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who said he would allow floor debate on immigration legislation to begin March 27. Frist's own bill featured substantial fines and other penalties for employers who hired illegal immigrants, deported immigrants who overstayed their visas, and did not establish a guest worker program.
On Wednesday, April 5 Senate Republicans announced that they had reached a compromise that would assign illegal immigrants to one of three categories:
- Resident 5 years or more: Could start the process of applying for citizenship if they remained employed, paid fines and back taxes, and learned English.
- Resident 2-5 years: Required to leave the country briefly and could re-enter the country as temporary workers. Could apply for citizenship with no guarantee. Temporary workers who did not apply for citizenship would have to leave after six years.
- Resident <2 years: Required to leave. Could apply for the temporary worker program with no guarantee.
Neither side appeared happy with the compromise. Senator Frist complained that Democrats had not allowed votes on major amendments. Democrats used parliamentary tactics to force a vote on the Judiciary Committee bill that offered broader legalization. Minority Leader Reid said that Republicans had "stonewalled" by trying to pass amendments that would undo the legalization provisions in the Judiciary Committee bill.
Thursday morning, Senator Frist told reporters the compromise represented a "huge breakthrough," but as floor debate continued through the day and late into the evening, disagreements that had appeared on Wednesday showed no sign of resolving. Republicans continued to insist that Democrats allow votes on amendments, including:
- Requiring that the Department of Homeland Security certify that the border was secure before implementing a guest worker program or legalizing undocumented immigrants.
- Excluding from legalization any immigrant who had received a deportation order, or who had been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors.
Republican supporters of the compromise measure, including Sen. John McCain, asserted that they could easily defeat the extreme amendments. Democrats countered that the amendments were designed to ensure that the legalization provisions would never take effect.
On Friday, April 7, attempts to end debate on competing proposals were unsuccessful, the measure was sent back to the Judiciary Committee, and the Senate left for a two-week recess. Partisans on both sides of the issue blamed each other. Senator Chuck Hagel, a supporter of the compromise, sought to put the matter in perspective. "It encompasses societal, economic, security issues that are all woven into one fabric," Hagel said, "and when you have that much at stake for a nation, it's going to take some time to work through it." Immigrants rights advocates expressed concern that the delay might hurt their cause. Frank Sharry of the National Immigration Forum told the NY Times "I'm a little worried that the political momentum that we witnessed this week may dissipate somewhat."
Employers and workers generally reacted with anger and disappointment to the Senate's failure to agree on an immigration plan. Employers who rely on existing guest worker programs had hoped the Senate would reduce the amount of paperwork required. Undocumented workers anticipated a program that would allow them eventually to apply for citizenship. Provisions in the Senate bill that would have required them to return home were a particular concern. "If people come here, work very hard, do everything they're told to do, and then when they're not needed anymore they're told to take your things and go back, they might as well be slaves," Paulino Pineda, a 65-year old community college custodian from Toledo, OH, told the NY Times
While many employers in industries that use large numbers of unskilled workers viewed the idea of a guest worker program as a stabilizing influence, others disagreed. Florida tomato grower Jay Taylor told the Times that he would have preferred a bill that allowed guest workers to enter and leave the country with impunity, but without the promise of citizenship. "We need something that is well thought out, well planned and well executed, and in the atmosphere we are in today on this subject, we're not going to get that kind of situation," Taylor said.
Some employers questioned provisions in the Senate bill that would have required immigrants to learn English and pay fines. Many also objected to provisions that would have penalized employers for hiring illegal workers even unknowingly. Others expressed a concern that offering amnesty to illegal workers would make them less productive.
What Kind of Republican?
As Congress battles over immigration, the consequences are likely to be far greater than the details of border walls or green cards. The most important political outcome may turn out to be the message that Republicans send about the kind of the party they are and hope to be.
So wrote the editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal on March 31. The writers went on to ask rhetorically whether the party would continue in the optimistic tradition of Ronald Reagan, encouraging cultural diversification, or "take another one of their historical detours into a cramped, exclusionary policy that tells millions of new immigrants, and especially Hispanics, that they belong somewhere else?" The paper identified the Bush immigration proposals with the former, and Rep. Tom Tancredo "and his platoon of talk-show hosts and Tory columnists" with the latter.
The Journal acknowledged the anxiety at the "rapid pace of demographic change," particularly among residents of border states where local tax revenue helps provide health care and education for illegal immigrants. But the editors warned that arresting and deporting millions of immigrants "would cause far more social and economic disruption than we have now." Moreover, they suggested:
Such a punitive policy would alienate business owners and religious conservatives among the GOP base. But because the policy is aimed largely at Hispanic immigrants, it will also rightly be seen as a specific ethnic rebuke. Millions of Hispanics -- both illegals and those who have been here for decades -- will get the message that the Republican Party doesn't want them. Those Republicans who shout "no amnesty" and want to make illegally crossing the Rio Grande a felony are well on their way to creating a generation or more of new Democratic voters.
Republicans have made similar mistakes in the past, the paper warned. In the 1920s Catholic voters were alienated by Republican immigration policies; after World War II similar measures made Democrats out of immigrants from Asia and the Pacific Islands; in 1994, Proposition 187, which sought to cut off public services to undocumented aliens, led to a short-term victory, but polarized Hispanic voters and relegated the Republicans to minority party status in California.
In an op-ed page rebuttal, Tancredo labeled the Journal's charge that his policy was anti-immigrant a "false picture" painted by Democrats. Tancredo seemed most offended by the Journal's suggestion that his position would take the Republican party "outside of the Reagan tradition." He blamed Sen. Ted Kennedy for gutting the enforcement provisions of the Reagan immigration bill.
As a member of the Colorado statehouse, Tancredo belonged to a group known as "The Crazies" because of their fanatical opposition to taxes. Tancredo and his allies apparently have tried to live up to the name. As part of his enforcement plan Tancredo wants to deploy American troops across the Mexican border. His House ally Dana Rohrbacher of California, has argued that prisoners can do the jobs left by deported immigrants. After a March 15 appearance on CNBC with Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, Tancredo reportedly "aggressively continued the discussion off camera...." As Gutierrez walked toward the elevator after the interview, Tancredo reportedly tried to stop him by putting his hand on Gutierrez's shoulder. Gutierrez is said to have responded "Get your hand off me! You racist. You bigot." Tancredo reportedly responded " You look in the mirror if you want to see a racist." Gutierrez and his staff reached the elevator, and Tancredo and his staff took the stairs.
Ironically, Tancredo is the grandson of Italian immigrants who arrived in the US unable to speak English.
Recently, observers have noted that "White supremacist groups such as the National Vanguard and the National Socialist Movement are using the immigration issue as a public relations and recruiting tool." Chat rooms frequented by white supremacists have seen an increase in anti-immigrant invective, targeting Mexican and Latin American immigrants in particular. The chat room discussions revealed that the supremacist groups see the immigration policy as part of a larger Jewish conspiracy within the US government to take over the country and use blacks and Hispanics to undermine the "Aryan" race.
Although the white supremacist message was substantially the same before the recent return of public debate about immigration, the groups have broadened their target audience by capitalizing on the fears of those who are concerned about the influx of immigrants into their communities. Observers have suggested that the groups are unlikely to organize attacks against immigrant advocacy groups or demonstrations, rather they might try to provoke attacks by pro-immigrant groups. Such attacks would enable them to portray themselves as victims, and immigrants as violent and dangerous. As of this writing, attendance at pro-immigrant demonstrations has tended to vastly outnumber counter-protesters, although that fact could itself be used as a supremacist recruiting tool.
Concerns over immigration have already appeared in Republican congressional primaries. "It's coming up everywhere and at the very least, there won't be a debate where this is not a big question," the Cook Report's Jennifer Duffy told the Wall Street Journal. Hard liners cite economic, cultural, and national security issues. The claim is made that illegal immigrants receive more in services than they pay in taxes, and that they drive wages down in lower-income brackets. The xenophobia of some Americans has been exploited as the arrival of Spanish speakers is described as an "invasion." And finally, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have once again been invoked to arouse fear that US borders can be easily penetrated by hostile elements.
As The Economist observed, many of the proposals in the House immigration bill "seem designed more with this year's mid-term elections in mind than any chance of being put into action."
For instance, if America were really to turn 11m people into felons (which would be five times the number of Americans currently behind bars) it would clog up the criminal justice system. But tough talk on illegals will go down well with conservatives in the Republican primaries; and Democrats are already worried that, in November, immigration will distract attention away from Iraq and the deficit.
The economic issue has appeared in Nebraska, for instance, where a large number of workers have immigrated to work in the agriculture and meat-packing industries. Some residents have voiced concern about the impact on hospitals and schools. Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat, advocates building fences along the US-Mexican border, but two Republican challengers have called for tougher enforcement of existing laws, and adding more border agents.
In Utah, Rep. Chris Cannon, who supports a guest-worker program, faces a challenge from Merrill Cook, who says he entered the race because he disagreed with Mr. Cannon's position on immigration. Cannon's views on immigration led to a runoff in 2004 against a candidate with an anti-immigration platform. Kelly Patterson, director of the Center for the Study of Elections at Brigham Young University, told the Wall Street Journal, "There's tension in the party between those individuals who want to protect the U.S. border and who want to preserve American culture and uphold the law versus the small-business and agriculture crowd that needs and likes the labor."
Immigration is likely to figure prominently in Arizona congressional contests. Randy Graf, who is running for the House seat vacated by fellow Republican Jim Kolbe, has made immigration a focal issue of his campaign. Graf advocates a "zero tolerance" policy on illegal immigration, opposes guest-worker programs, and wants fences and walls built along his state's border with Mexico. Meanwhile, Sen. John Kyl, who advocates allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the US if they return home first and re-enter as guest workers, faces an opponent who supports Sen. John McCain's plan to allow illegal immigrants eventually to apply for citizenship.
Immigration, Borderlands, and Economics
81% of economists who responded to a Wall Street Journal forecasting survey said that the effect of illegal immigration on the wage of low-income workers was slight or none. The economic effect of illegal immigrants is difficult to measure, because their activity is outside "conventional economic data." A 2005 survey by the Pew Hispanic Center found the highest concentration of illegal immigrants working in jobs such as housecleaning, food manufacturing and farming. "[T]he impact on wages is spread across a lower-income group," independent economist Nicholas S. Perna told the Journal. 44 of the 46 economists who responded to the question said that illegal immigration had benefited the US economy. The key benefit to business, say most of the economists surveyed, is that jobs can be filled at wages that "many Americans won't accept."
As The Economist noted recently, "the relationship between immigration and wages is not clear-cut, even in theory." Wages do depend on the supply of labor, but also on the supply of capital. As an isolated event, an influx of immigrants could reduce wages by increasing the supply of labor. But cheaper labor increases the potential return on investment in new physical plant, or new businesses, which in turn creates additional demand for workers.
If productivity is constant, there should be no net effect on wages once capital has adjusted. Immigration can also shift the relative pay of workers with different skill sets. If native workers are competing for the same low-skilled jobs as incoming immigrants, an infusion of workers could depress those wages. If, however, incoming workers had skills that complemented rather than competed with the skill set of native workers, the native workers would be better off. The effect of immigration on wages, then, depends both on how capital adjusts and on to what extent the immigrants replace native workers.
Economists have attempted to measure economic effects of immigration in a variety of ways. David Card, of the University of California, Berkeley, has compared economic trends in cities with a large number of immigrants, such as Los Angeles, to those in cities with fewer immigrants, such as Indianapolis. George Borjas, of Harvard University, has tried to statistically filter out the effect of immigration from national labor statistics. Gianmarco Ottaviano, of the University of Bologna, and Giovanni Peri, of the University of California, Davis have tried to refine Borjas's findings by taking into account the kinds of jobs in which natives vs. immigrants are found. While the research is not conclusive, it supports the views of the economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal that immigration has at most a small negative effect on the wages of the least skilled laborers.
Another way of looking at the economic effect of immigration is in terms of population density. The population density of the UK is 247 people per square kilometer; that of the European Union is 115; Japan's population density is 337. Population density in the US (not counting Alaska) is 34. If one assumes a relationship between population density and productivity, the US can utilize increases in population. From this perspective the huge influx of Asian immigrants in the last 40 years is not an accident.
There is, however, an important difference in the relationship between an immigrant's culture and geography if he moves to the US from Europe or Asia, and if he moves to the US from Mexico. In the former case, there is what Stratfor's George Friedman calls a "sharp geographical event."
... [W]hatever memories they might have of their birthplace, whatever cultural values they might bring with them, the geographical milieu was being abandoned. And with that, so were the geopolitical consequences of their migration.
The situation with Mexico is different because of the phenomenon of "borderlands." Borderlands are found where national borders have shifted leaving members of each nation across the border of the other. Alsace-Lorraine is one example, where cultural Germans live in what is now France, and vice versa. This is the case along the US-Mexican border.
The US conquered the region between 1835 and 1848, but Mexican culture pervades the area north of the border, while US culture reaches south of the border. Friedman suggests that, because of the borderland phenomenon, immigration from Mexico should be understood differently than immigration from a location geographically remote from the US. The latter has an important effect on populating the country; the former is more a function of the borderland.
Under the heading "Build roads not walls" the editors of the Economist urged Bush, Mexican president Vicente Fox, and Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, who met in Cancun, Mexico, in March, to recognize that "faster economic growth in Mexico would do more than any legislative fix to take the heat out of America's immigration argument." The Economist noted that, when NAFTA was passed in 1994, there was a hope that the Mexican economy would gain strength approaching that of the US. "That hasn't happened," the editors wrote. Part of the low-wage manufacturing formerly provided by Mexico is now provided by China. Mexico only creates "decent jobs" for approximately 25% of the workers entering the labor force each year. The solution, The Economist suggested, is tax, energy, and legal reforms in Mexico, and US-assistance to expand the road and railway system that now benefits mostly northern Mexico.
A North American infrastructure fund—in which the United States matched Mexican investment—makes much more sense than spending money on a border wall. In the long run, a richer Mexico means a richer and more secure United States.
"President Bush Proposes New Temporary Worker Program" Office of the Press Secretary: White House. 7 Jan. 2004
Bumiller, Elisabeth "Bush Facing Serious Obstacles as He Pushes for Changes in Immigration Policy" NY Times 24 Mar. 2006
Taylor, Jeff A. "The Looming Immigration War: Tancredo for president, and other battles" Reason 25 Nov. 2005
Thomas, Cal "Weyrich tears into Bush on immigration" Daily Journal. 22 Nov. 2005
"Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendment"
TalkLeft.com. 8 Dec. 2005
Weisman, Jonathan "House Votes to Toughen Laws on Immigration" Washington Post 17 Dec. 2005
Jackson, David and Kathy Kiely "Senate committee supports overhaul of immigration law" USA Today 27 Mar. 2006
"Thousands Rally in Cities for Immigrant Rights" Associated Press. 25 Mar. 2006
Avila, Oscar and Antonio Olivo "Ethnic groups rally for immigrant rights" Chicago Tribune 10 Mar. 2006
Bernstein, Nina et al. "In the Streets, Suddenly, An Immigrant Groundswell" NY Times 27 Mar. 2006
Gilbert, Kathy L. "Clergy rally in protest of immigration reform bill" United Methodist News Service. 28 Mar. 2006
Swarns, Rachel L. "Senate Republicans Strike Immigration Deal" NY Times 6 Apr. 2006
Swarns, Rachel L."Senate Deal Set For Immigration, But Then Falters" NY Times 7 Apr. 2006
Hulse, Carl and Rachel L. Swarns "Blame and Uncertainty as Immigration Deal Fails" NY Times 8 Apr. 2006
Goodnough, Abby and Jennifer Steinhauer"Senate's Failure to Agree on Immigration Plan Angers Workers and Employers Alike" NY Times 9 Apr. 2006
Woods, Casey and Jim Puzzanghera "Citizenship as birthright? Foes say no" Miami Herald 14 Dec. 2005
Eastman, John C. "Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11" Testimony before US House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims. 29 Sep. 2005
"Tom Tancredo's Latest: Repeal the 14th Amendment" TalkLeft.com. 8 Dec. 2005
Mailman, Stanley "California's Proposition 187 and Its Lessons" New York Law Journal 3 Jan. 1995
"Immigration and the GOP" Wall Street Journal 31 Mar. 2006
Tancredo, Tom. "GOP Isn't Anti-Immigrant; It's Simply Being Realistic" Wall Street Journal 12 Apr. 2006
Annett, Tim "Illegal Immigrants and the Economy" Wall Street Journal 13 Apr. 2006
"Sense, not Sensenbrenner" The Economist 30 Mar. 2006
"Don't fence us out" The Economist 30 Mar. 2006
"Myths and migration" The Economist 6 Apr. 2006
Sprengelmeyer, M.E. "Reps Tancredo, Gutierrez engage in nasty exchange" Rocky Mountain News 16 Mar. 2006
"The Tancredo tendency" The Economist 6 Apr. 2006
"The Immigration Issue as a White Supremacist Recruiting Tool" Stratfor. 12 Apr. 2006
Fellinger, Richard "Locals rally at state Capitol" The Evening Sun 17 Apr. 2006
Friedman, George "Borderlands and Immigrants" Stratfor 4 Apr. 2006
· Alex Tabarrok's open letter, signed by economists and social scientists from the left and right, including Brad DeLong and Greg Mankiw.
· Debate on How to Reshape Law Has Divided Republicans (Washington Post, May 21, 2006)