While I've been focusing on space policy, much of the talk in The Corner has been about immigration. Jonathan Adler has a post with which I'm sympathetic.

While I generally favor substantial relaxation of restrictions on those immigrating to the U.S. to work or study, I do not favor relaxing citizenship requirements. To the contrary, I would probably favor increasing the requirements for citizenship, as well as for receiving whatever forms of public assistance are provided by the government.

I would go even further. I think that someone willing to walk barefoot through the desert and risk death by hyperthermia and dehydration is likelier to appreciate this country, and is a better candidate for citizenship than someone who was fortunate enough to happen to be born here, or have parents who are citizens, and thereby thinks that the world, or at least nation, owes him a living.

I in fact think that citizenship should be much harder to get, but we have to separate the concept of citizenship from a right to work. Citizenship should be about voting, and having a say in the running of the country, and I'd cheerfully disenfranchise those of able body and mind who are drains on the public wealth, rather than contributors.

Rand,

Another comment over at NRO linked to an article about immigrants and crime. If that article is true (I have no direct or even indirect knowledge) we do want to address the problem of illegal immigration.

We want to welcome people like my coworker who's a retired Soviet Navy officer (now a proud American citizen).

We want to welcome young, poor immigrants who come here to work in worthy enterprises.

We don't want people who come here to rob and murder our citizens.

I think that goes without saying, Chuck (at least at this website...)

... a better candidate for citizenship than someone who was fortunate enough to happen to be born here.

A little history lesson is in order here. Conferral of citizenship on people born here was not automatic until the passage of the forteenth amendment in 1868, in the wake of the Civil War. Those "people fortunate enough to happen to be born here" were slaves and the children of slaves, and their descendents might find your characterization of them as "fortunate enough to happen to be born here" as (let's be charitable) insensitive.

And if your response to this is, "Slavery is ancient history" then my response is: perhaps, but institutionalized discrimination and disenfranchisement of minorities through poll taxes and other legal mechanisms is not.

I respectfully suggest bearing these facts in mind when framing your rhetoric on this issue. I agree that our immigration and citizenship laws need to be reformed, but it is important to understand that there are sound reasons why things are the way they are.