hey, people are entitled to their views, though no doubt that is extreme. I assume that your center does not agree with the majority of conservative constitutional scholars, and almost every single moderate constitutional scholar in america that the nsa wiretap program flagrantly violates the separation of powers clause.

yet there are no protests abouto this, just some whimpers, and Arlen Specter asking "where is the outrage."

meanwhile, immigrants and illegal immigrants, confusing immigrants with the illegal immigrant issue, organize the enormous march. I understand the issue mans a lot to them, but this kind of enthusiasm needs to be generated for the issues that really matter.

illegal immigration is not cut and dry, as a practical aspect. but the idea to reward illegal immigration is realy no different than what that extremist you cite suggests. if your borders are not open to the entire world to just come and become a citizen(which, with an overcrowded populace, and a mature country, they should not be)why should they be to illegal immigrants just by virtue of the fact that they have come here?

because they worked? that work benefitted them and/or their families back home. And they extract more in social services.

this is not to condemn illegal immigrants. they are not bad, or morally wrong to do what they think is in their bestinterests, to live in a better country. but why,as lou dobbs put it last night, shoudlbe "import mexico’s poverty" for example? mexico needs to take care of its own problems. there is this tendency to thinik that it is "mean" to not grant the equivalent to amnesty; as if those who have violated our immigration laws(again, I dont fault them for this, only suggest that they should not get special priveleges as a result) should get special treatment above and beyond anyone else in mexico,or anywhere else in the world for that matter.

I spent some time in the Ashbrook program a few years back and recall several lectures on multiculturalism. It was sort of a hot topic my freshman year.

I’d be curious to hear what the Ashbrook Center in general thinks of this issue now.

My favorite hamburger joint, owned and operated by Hispanic immigrants, closed for the protest. I’m going to miss that place.

"problema" is masculine.

I’ve been listening and reading many comments about this situation, many of them just say what they think as if that were a fact, like "illegal inmmigrants extract more in social services", can they be specific about which ones? what social services? Don’t they know that if some one doesn’t have social security number they don’t get any of them? or do they know what the Social Security Administration does with millions of dollars that the "illegals" workers report but they can not claim them? Before they say something they better have facts to support their statements.
Ignorance is harsh, unkind, not human.
America is just one. The continent is composed for North, Central and South America, but ignorance made them call America just to the north part.
"Illegal" inmigrants are also americans born in the wrong place.
I would like to hear from Ashbrook Center an opinion since many of its members are foreings too and can understand the anguish of being rejected from some people who doesn’t want to understand that we love this country and its culture which they take for granted.

Silvia,

Though I don’t speak for the Center, it seems you misunderstood the point of Dr. Schramm’s narrative (Born American, But in the Wrong Place). If I’m correct, it’s not that all human beings are born American, if in the wrong place, by virtue of being human. Rather, I think it is that an American is someone who has a particular understanding of the nature of men. While the continent may be composed of North, Central, and South "America," (I think North and South America are two different coninents), foreigners are not not "Americans" merely because they "call America just to the north part." Rather, I think, as Schramm’s narrative supports, that the American has a certain understanding about the proper republican political regime based on an understanding of human nature (all men are created equal...life,liberty,pursuit of happiness). The "Americanness" of Dr. Schramm and his father is that they valued and believed in the liberty that the American regime prospered, not just for the sake of enjoying its priveleges, but also for its goodness.

Of course, it’s the very understanding of natural rights that makes the immigration debate so interesting. Perhaps worse then "the anguish of being rejected from some people who doesn’t want to understand," is the anguish of having to (by necessity) create laws restricting access to enjoyment of the priveleges to other equally created human beings. This is difficult, but the political implications of "opening the doors" cannot be ignored. There is a large political component to this, and perhaps America remains consistent to its principles by offering a naturalization process.

The problem with the recent developments in the Mexican illegal immigrant situation is that the protestors seem to be decrying the very principles which make America a home for "Americans." If being "American" is an idea instead of a birthplace, and the idea is ignored by a group demanding access to the country in which the idea was fostered, then there will be problems.