At this point, there is not much to add to the cacophony of voices currently very loudly expressing themselves on the immigration reform issue, nor to my views on the matter previously expressed in these pages. So, for openers, I will repeat some thoughts, and then add a few new ones:It seems to me that this issue as much as any we face presents a convergence of often conflicting American passions—our compassion for the underdog, our heritage as a nation welcoming of immigrants, our free market idealism, and our commitment to the rule of law. I would like to believe that we will resolve it with due respect for all these instincts, but I know that some parts of all of them will suffer. I am not a “restrictionist” as that term has been defined, but I come down on the side of those who believe that we will not solve this problem without first committing to a policy of restoring the value and the priority of citizenship and strictly controlling our borders, while requiring assimilation to this culture by those we choose to admit. In other words, immigration should be first about citizenship, not about new voters or new workers.

In a book by Noah Pickus of Duke University, as recently reviewed in First Things, the author makes the excellent point that the current debate is largely about different ideas of what it means to be an American citizen, and he insightfully observes that we now “….face the difficult task of sustaining a civic nation in the absence of a dominant culture, ethnic identity, or consensus on the meaning of constitutional values…..”, making the challenge of forging unity much more difficult than in the founding era or even in the Progressive Era of unlimited immigration. Why is this the case? I submit that it is because the assault of the ideas of multiculturalism and postmodernism by our cultural and educational institutions over the past several decades, as well as the advent of market globalization, has undermined this consensus on what is meant by American citizenship. Can it be restored? We’re about to find out, with far reaching consequences for our future as a republic, and a major leading indicator will be the way we resolve this issue.

So where does this leave us on the immediate immigration questions? First, we can no longer just “muddle through”; we must find a long-term solution. Second, the rule of law should be the top priority, meaning that our borders must be strictly enforced and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” sanctuary policies of local law enforcement authorities must end. Third, I agree with Theodore Roosevelt who, in effect, said that we have no room for “hyphenated Americans” or dual citizenship; there is only room for those who want to be completely Americans. Fourth, the notion of temporary “guest” workers is unworkable—it creates a separate and un-American caste and it is unreasonable to expect them to honor the expiration of their guest permit. Let’s decide how many immigrants are required on an annual basis to meet the ever growing workforce needs of our economy and increase our immigration quotas to meet the need from those who want to become Americans in every sense or at least on a permanent visa basis. This can include those who are now here illegally, but only if they return to their country of origin, get certification from their home country that they do not have a criminal record, apply for permission to come here and work, receive an authenticated identification card, and sign a contract for work and commitment to pursue citizenship or permanent visa. Finally, to remove the major incentive for illegal immigration, serious employer penalties for hiring them should be enforced as a felony so that, over time and in combination with the other measures, the number of them will drastically shrink. These measures are true to our values and true to our instincts and will send the message that we have begun to restore the consensus on what it means to be an American citizen.

In response to my “Letter from London” essay and comments on Winston Churchill in the March issue, Wayne Lapham sent me a fascinating quote by Churchill from his book, The River War, published in 1899. It needs to be passed along in its entirety, and remember that Churchill was 24 years old at the time:“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

I am particularly struck by the insightful phrases, “fearful fatalistic apathy”, “paralyzes the social development”, and “retrograde force” and I wonder how confident he would now be that European Christianity is still “sheltered in the strong arms of science”.

Little did Sir Winston know then that just over twenty years later he would be assigned to manage the affairs of the defeated Ottoman Empire, including Mesopotamia, which produced a new map of the Middle East, making, among other inventions, a new nation—Iraq—out of a collection of tribes, decisions that continue to haunt us today as we seek to forge a “unity government” among the same tribes. Given the sentiments earlier expressed in his book, he had to know that this region and these decisions would be a continuing problem, and many historians have blamed him for not being more visionary.

But I believe we can’t blame Churchill; he did the best he could do with the tools and raw material at his disposal at the time. Moreover, he was a product of his time: the Victorian notion of “progress” which had morphed into Wilsonian and Fabian Socialist “progressivism”, shared by the well-intentioned, but also by the condescending and often duplicitous protectors of the perks of empire. All of this, in addition to the arrogance that we can play “czar” in dividing up the world to suit our interests and our preferences or to “teach people to elect good men” (Wilson). It is left for our generation to correct these misconceptions and the unfinished business. Freedom under the rule of law is the answer. The people of Iraq will now work it out. It will take more time and, unfortunately, more blood, but it is better than the alternatives.

Anyone familiar with the woeful state of teacher preparation in America should not have been surprised at the recent anti-American tirade by Colorado high school teacher Jay Bennish. You may wonder, where do these people come from? Well, the substantial majority of them come from our colleges of education, many of which encourage the shaping of students’ belief systems as a priority of at least equal standing with the relevant course subject matter. In fact, as reported by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), under guidelines issued by the federally recognized National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), colleges of education are required to assess the “dispositions” of teacher trainees as a condition for accreditation. According to the NCATE standards, these dispositions should include “beliefs and attitudes related to values such as caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility, and social justice” and, according to ACTA, there is already plenty of evidence that these guidelines are inviting political and ideological litmus tests for entry into the profession and to subordinate academic objectives to social engineering.The origin of this social engineering is no secret. It comes from the educational philosophy of John Dewey, the father of teacher education as we know it. Dewey shared Rousseau’s conviction that human nature is easily molded, which he believed should be a primary objective of education, and his ideas led to the firmly embedded concept of “constructivism” in teacher preparation, the belief that children are best taught by allowing their natural creativity to flourish. (For a good overview of Dewey’s thought and the havoc it has wreaked, see John Dewey and the Decline of American Education, by Henry T. Edmondson III.)

President Dwight Eisenhower had it pegged over fifty years ago: “Educators, parents, and students…..must be induced to abandon the educational path that, rather blindly, they have been following as a result of John Dewey’s teachings.” So far, we have made little progress in heeding his advice, and the Bennishes will keep coming.