The theme of the Symposium at which this Article was presented was Immigration Law and Institutional Design. Our mission, as Symposium participants, was to assess the efficacy of the institutions that adopt and enforce our immigration laws. But before we can possibly make an efficacy assessment, we must address a normative question, namely, just what is it that our immigration laws seek to accomplish? It seems to me that there are three mutually exclusive alternatives or, perhaps more accurately, three principal points on a continuum of policy alternatives: (1) open borders, with unconstrained immigration and naturalization; (2) closed borders, with no permanent immigration and naturalization, only temporary visas for students, tourists, and so forth; and (3) controlled borders, with limited immigration and naturalization according to some established standard.