(Analyst's note:  Must read.  In addition to the law just passed by Arizona, this article recommends a reasoned "...phased approach to immigration reform centered on border security, interior enforcement, and legal immigration processes.")

One thing all sides can agree on is that Congress has been hard at work as it rushes to push through the left's radical agenda. President Obama himself admitted, "I've been working Congress pretty hard." That's exactly why he indicated on Wednesday that he would not try to push through amnesty for illegal immigrants this year.

But, oh, how quickly things change in Washington. Shortly after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D - NJ) introduced an immigration reform proposal -- the same in most respects as the rejected 2007 amnesty bill -- the Obama administration agreed to take "an active role" in sculpting the bill.

Conservatives in Congress are already castigating the attempt, and even some liberal lawmakers express doubts that legislation this large and controversial can be squeezed into the agenda during an election year. Even Sen. Lindsey Graham, the lone Republican working on comprehensive immigration reform, told the Washington Post, "if you bring up immigration in this climate, you'll divide the country further."

Illegal immigration does need to be addressed. But rushing through amnesty-based legislation disguised as "comprehensive" reform is not the way to go about it. The process must be gradual, must be based on fundamental principles, and must uphold the rule of law.

The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll explains:

An appropriate solution would reject amnesty; apply appropriate security to the border; work as a partner with Mexico in helping them address economic and civil society reform and combating transnational crime; enforce workplace and immigration laws in partnership with state and local governments; pilot effective temporary worker programs that help employers get the employees they need to help grow the economy; and reform our visa, immigration and citizenship services.

The Reid-Schumer plan, he writes, does none of this. Ill-conceived proposals such as this, argues Heritage's Jena McNeil, make it "abundantly clear that the federal government refuses to make the right decisions in terms of enforcing the law and making the critical reforms necessary to drive down illegal immigration."

The Heritage Foundation has advocated state and local innovation when it comes to immigration enforcement. The recently-passed Arizona immigration law is a good example of how states can and should do more. Not only does the new law crack down on illegal immigration, but it is a healthy exercise of a state's Constitutional rights. The 10th Amendment preserves the power of the states to police their own jurisdictions.

As Heritage expert Matt Mayer explains, the Supreme Court upheld the 10th Amendment's federalist principles in Plyer v. Doe. The court held that, "despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation's borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns."

As Heritage has long argued, the United States was established on principles that support welcoming new residents through immigration and naturalization. Unfortunately, over time, immigration policy has become skewed as a debate between unfettered immigration and none at all.

Before settling on another disastrous and divisive proposal, lawmakers should take a breath and work toward a phased approach to immigration reform centered on border security, interior enforcement, and legal immigration processes.