to many legal aliens), of the President (e.g., demands for additional restora-
tions of benefits and for repeal of some of the 1996 law's enforcement pro-
visions), of the courts (e.g., striking down. Proposition 187 and some of the
1996 law's restrictions on judicial review), and of state and local govern-
ments (e.g., spending their own funds to compensate for the 1996 law's
cuts in welfare benefits).

I republish the essays here essentially in their original form--again with
one exception. Chapter 3 is a coauthored empirical study of immigration
litigation during the 1980s; it consists largely of statistical analysis, the de-
tails of which will interest only a small group of specialists who can, if they
wish, consult the original for those details. I therefore include only the in-
troduction to that study, a summary of its major findings, the conclusion,
and the notes that accompany those passages. In all of the other essays, I
excised only those passages whose deletion would prevent repetition or
would remove anachronistic data and references. (In such cases, the text
does not indicate the excisions.) For the sake of readability, I converted all
of the original footnotes (and the textual bibliographical references in chap-
ter 1) to endnotes. In some chapters I excised original notes or added new
ones to reflect significant recent developments. In such cases, the notes were
renumbered; any cross-references in the notes have been changed to reflect
this renumbering. For the same reason, I have augmented some of the orig-
inal notes. Finally, because some of the 1996 changes have rendered certain
statutory citations in the original notes anachronistic, readers seeking cita-
tions to the current statutes should not simply rely on my endnote refer-
ences.

Although all of the essays express my own views on the many legal and
policy issues explored in the book, the reader will find my position most
crisply summarized in the final essay, "Alien Rumination" (Chapter 14),
which takes the form of an extended review of a notorious indictment by
journalist Peter Brimelow, in his 1995 book Alien Nation, of America's im-
migration policy in the post-1965 era. Although a review (and a quite neg-
ative one, at that) might seem to be an odd format for presenting my affir-
mative views, I believe that in this case it serves the purpose admirably by
enabling me to discuss the available evidence bearing on each of the norma-
tive and empirical claims advanced by most contemporary restrictionists.
The concluding sentences of that essay capture the credo, which I believe
that evidence supports, and the faith animating this book: "Immigration,
including the post-1965 wave, has served America well. If properly regu-
lated, there is every reason to expect that it will continue to do so."

Peter H. Schuck

-xv-