Final Four pictured left to right George Holley, Rick Nichols, Moderator Alan "Lindy" Linda, Erik Schultz, and John Pollock

Winner of 2009 Great American Think-Off
Chosen in New York Mills Saturday, June 13, 2009

John Pollock, a civil rights attorney from Montgomery, Alabama, won the gold medal in Saturday night’s Great American Think-Off debate over three other finalists in New York Mills.

2nd place silver medalist Erik Schultz of Washington, D.C., is an Air Force Master Sergeant. The two bronze medalists were George Holley, a retail business owner from Tucson, Arizona and Rick Nichols, a journalist and environmental advocate from Leavenworth, Kansas. Each of the contestants also received a $500 cash award.

After two rounds of the debate, Mr. Schultz and Mr. Pollock advanced to the final round. Mr. Schultz argued that the end achieved should always be the measure of the good, and that “there should be exceptional ends behind unprincipled means.” He proposed that the ends always justify the means when the end is great as in efforts to prevent another 9-11.

Mr. Pollock asserted that intentionality is more important than the perceived end in determining if an action is good or bad. Arguing that we all must acknowledge that it is sometimes right to do the wrong thing, for example to lie to protect a higher good, he effectively proposed to the audience that the basis of what is right should not be placed on result primarily. He gave the example of a bank robber whose goal was simply to rob a bank but who caused the death of an elderly patron from a heart attack in the process. Within our social contract, Mr. Pollock argued, that bank robber will be charged with murder even though that was clearly not his goal.

Unintended consequences from our belief that we are doing the right thing, Mr. Pollock proposed, can lead to greater evil than we can foresee before we act. In the end, the audience agreed with Pollock’s understanding that what is right, at least in America, is understood to be an evolving set of ideas, not a static set of principles that never changes.

The finalists were selected through the contest’s annual essay competition from more than 500 essays submitted. The Think-Off is an annual philosophy contest sponsored by the New York Mills Regional Cultural Center in Minnesota. Next year’s contest question will be announced January 1, 2010 and published here on this web page. The full text of the final essays is included below.

“No, it is never wrong to do the right thing.”

Erik G. Schultz

was born in Charlevoix, Michigan in 1972 and graduated from Hernando High School in Brooksville, Florida. Erik, who certified as a USPTA tennis instructor after high school, eventually found his calling in the Air Force and has completed tours in Texas, Saudi Arabia, California, Alaska and Iraq. Today Erik is a 15-year Master Sergeant enrolled at the National Defense Intelligence College in Washington D.C. He is earning an undergraduate degree in National Defense and looks forward to applying acquired skills at his follow-on assignment to the Pentagon. Erik is married and the proud father of two boys, a son at the Air Force Academy studying to become a pilot and jump master and another who is an honor roll student in Junior High and an accomplished athlete.

My mother-in-law requested my help years ago to take an animal from a desperate environment she had discovered while driving a newspaper van. Very concerned for the safety of animals, especially dogs, she approached a fenced in residence for a closer look and saw a puppy was being abused physically by two adult dogs. Watching the puppy tortured, going hungry and soon to die, she knew the situation was not about to change. She asked me to scale the fence and retrieve the animal, knowing the danger and criminality involved. Once I saw the puppy’s conditions I decided it best to get the animal out of there soonest.

The situation surrounded deciding whether the value of potentially saving the dog’s life was more important than the inherent wrong of illegally trespassing and stealing someone else’s property. I decided that

the life was more important and the tangible sign of watching him develop healthy and be grateful was a type of reassurance. I have always wondered though if I did the right thing by ignoring my conscience and committing a crime.

A salient sixth sense exists in all people determining right from wrong and the choice to follow or not. The sixth sense being integrity scribes a blueprint for moral action, but not litmus for exception. Integrity voices a judgment in personal action, it chimes whether asked or not. People are defined and bound by freedom of choice. Knowing an action is wrong; individuals become conscientious objectors or supporters of end results justifying righteousness of action.

Certain actions are wrong and inexcusable as opposed to others when viewed under extraordinary circumstance. Murder, rape and destruction with little gain and no reasons why are unacceptable wrongs, little explains their disposition to go unpunished. Lying, cheating and stealing are baseless wrongs in their pure form, but take on new meaning when placed in context. Wrongs are sometimes surrounded by contradiction that supports their potential to be right. It is an innate integrity that subconsciously guides decisions first and what follows is humanistic balancing of benefit and harm.

I once lied to my superiors and stated I was unfit for duty, in order to work day labor services making extra money for my new born child.My son was a month old and we did not have money for required costs including a car seat, clothes, food and nursing supplies for my wife. I was in the Air Force and manning was very tight at the unit. I had a set schedule, however due to mission demands and overseas deployments, I was regularly recalled for additional duty. On the day I was supposed to start day labor, already a service violation due to lack of authorization, I received a recall to duty. I falsely stated I had been drinking and was unfit to report. I was told to disregard and report as normal following

scheduled time off, which I conducted at the labor service. I worked several shifts to pay for required supplies. I earned money I could not get by performing extra duty in the military. My integrity told me it was wrong, my dereliction of duty; however I provided necessary items for my family.

There are many ways to do things right for the wrong reason, but there are few instances to do things wrong for the right reason. The intention and motivation behind an action is much different than the actions themselves. As long as the action is honest and moral the reasons behind a good deed can only be appreciated no matter how disingenuous the actor, for example volunteering at a homeless shelter to impress an attractive partner or coaching a children’s team while dictating the position and playing time of a son or daughter. However, the decision to do wrong can be absolved only by extreme outcomes. Had the authorities been called and investigation conducted on the puppy in such deplorable conditions, he could have died. The alternative to making more money in the service was requesting loans I could not repay and most supplies were required immediately.

There should be exceptional ends behind unprincipled means. While conventional law and employment ethics might not agree, individuals must have, in certain cases, free will to measure disapproving, immortal and criminal action by the value of its conclusion. I decided those actions were the right things to do, knowing deception, distrust and theft were required. I believed it to be the only option in achieving imperative results, though actions were wrong.

“No, it is never wrong to do the right thing.”

Rick Nichols is an essayist, environmental activist and former employment coach of adults with disabilities. Rick Nichols came full circle in 2001 when he returned to the city of his birth, Leavenworth, Kansas, with the purchase of a historic home overlooking the Missouri River. Rick belongs to Leavenworth’s First Presbyterian Church, where he serves as a deacon, the Kansas City Press Club, and the Sierra Club. He is a graduate of Olathe (Kansas) High School, where he participated in debate and forensics, and the University of Kansas. Rick is a part-time respite care provider and the operator of a part-time ice cream business.

“When you come to a fork in the road, take it!” – Yogi Berra

Sounded like good advice at the time, but there I was at the grocery store when the checker asked me, “Cash or credit?”, only to be answered by the sacker, who followed with, “Paper or plastic?” I was paralyzed as I grappled with the “quintessential questions” of our day – anxious to advance in either direction, and yet afraid to err in my selection. For there was that “Y”. Or so I thought, dazed by the double whammy.

Fellow travelers, if I may liken what might be termed “the moral life” to the main road, then those so inclined must stay the course, turning not to the right or to the left, leaning not on worldly wisdom, and fearing not the fork in the road. Because some of us, myself included, have already come to the “Y” and made there a conscious decision to go one way and not the other, then proceeded in faith, free of the shackles that once constrained us. And now, to me at least, the “fork” is but an illusion, a mere metaphor for any set of conflicting choices. Any seemingly no-win situration.

For example, suppose I’m deeply engaged in community-wide volunteer work through my church, to the point that I’ve missed some family gatherings. Do I deny the call on my heart and trust that God will provide someone to replace me, or do I continue to minister to the needy.

Or suppose I have a divorced friend who, by his admission, regularly yells at his children, who periodically bear bruises on their arms and legs. Do I report my friend to Family Services and run the risk of ruining a long-time relationship, or do I simply look the other way?

Or suppose I have a neighbor who, by her admission, eagerly collects her dead mother’s Social Security checks to fully pay the monthly mortgage. Do I report my neighbor to the authorities and take the chance that another house on the block may soon be empty, or do I just mind my own business?

Is it ever inconvenient, painful or unpopular to do the right thing? Yes. But is it ever wrong to do the right thing? Mmm . . . interesting question. Turn it around, “Is it ever right to do the wrong thing?”, and the answer is a no-brainer. But leave it be and it leaves the door open for moral relativism to march through and make a stand for all things fuzzy. Like fuzzy thinking. Or fuzzy feelings. Or that fuzzy crystal ball, which prevented philosophers from the past from weighing in on the matter at hand. Fortunately, however, that’s when the famously funny former New York catcher showed up on TV to bail me out.

As I traverse the main road, then, I can proceed with confidence knowing that I occupy the high ground and can bank on that and some “Yankee ingenuity” whenever a “fork” appears. Even so, I must constantly guard against the temptation to second-guess myself. Yep, reckon I was wrong to start sponsoring two children several years ago. Shame on me for not knowing that I’d get fired and the economy would tank three months later. It’s possible, then, to do the right thing at the wrong time. Add to that all the right things that are done the wrong way plus all the right things that are done for all the wrong reasons.

Finally, we’ve got all the right things we do that somehow produce the wrong results (i.e., unintended consequences), triggering immediate condemnation. Hey, no good deed goes unpunished.

Is it ever wrong to walk the dog, eat your vegetables or say “I love you”? Probably not. So is it ever wrong to do the right thing? Mmm . . . interesting question. Of course, I bet there’s some Wall street type out there who’s already done a cost-benefit analysis and determined definitively that it’s occasionally “wrong” to do the right thing. But I wold suggest to the postmodern crowd that if it’s ever “wrong” to do the right thing, then maybe the “right thing” wasn’t really right to begin with.

In short, it’s never wrong to do the right thing. So go ahead and do the right thing, then go to bed with a clear conscience, sleep well and get up in the morning ready to hug the man in the mirror.

Is it ever wrong to do the right thing? No! Case closed.

“Yes, it is sometimes wrong to do the right thing.”

George Holley was born in Roswell, New Mexico in 1951 and lived there until he left to attend The Holy Cross Abbey School, a college preparatory school located in Canon City, Colorado. In 1969 he enrolled in the University of Arizona and completed a Bachelor of Science degree in economics in 1974. After graduation, he was employed by E.F. Hutton, a New York Stock Exchange Member Firm, in Tucson, Arizona. In 1994 he left the brokerage business and purchased a retail franchise. Mr. Holley enjoys playing golf, traveling and various areas of study including philosophy, religion and current events.

Is it ever wrong to do the right thing? In considering this question I think we should first define right as moral virtue rather than a practical, efficient or utilitarian use of the word. Given this, Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics defines moral virtue as: the mean between the extremes with regard to action or emotion. Now, we might take the extreme positions of: 1) If it is wrong, it can never be the right thing to do or 2) Nothing is ever right or wrong, it is always relative. Neither approach would adequately address the question or provide a useful answer. The challenge comes in finding the midpoint between two extremes and this often puts us in moral dilemma. Moral dilemma is not the choice of the clearly good over the clearly evil. If the choice is clear, choose the good and avoid the evil. This is not always easy or the choice which is ultimately made, but it is clear what the choice should be.

In contrast, when choosing between the greater of two or more goods or the lesser of two or more evils we have moral dilemma. This is a situation when we might choose to do the right thing at the wrong time or in the wrong circumstance. Of course, we always seek the absolute moral truth for any situation, but that truth is not always self evident. I would argue that in the reality of life we don’t and can’t function in a world of absolutes or total relativism. We must seek the mean between the extremes or moral virtue. Therefore, there are times and circumstances where it is wrong to do the right thing.

Here in southern Arizona we face a tragic situation of people dying of thirst and heat stroke when trying to cross our border with Mexico in the heat of our summers. A group of good people have come together to place water stations in the desert with the hope of preventing some of these deaths, the right thing to do. The dilemma comes, not withstanding the legal issues, in the argument that the water stations encourage attempts thus causing more deaths. I am not taking a position on the practice nor the argument against it, but it is clear that providing water to a dying person is the right thing to do but the unintended result is also possible. This would then be an example of doing the right thing but in the wrong circumstance and perhaps the wrong time, the middle of summer in the Sonora desert.

Today, we are in an extremely difficult economy. Many of my fellow small and very small business owners must make what the pundits call tough choices. That is an understatement. During this kind of economic uncertainty it is common to be asked about the company’s financial condition and the prospect of continued operation. The totally honest or right thing to do, when asked, is to inform your employees, your customers and vendors of your actual financial condition. If the business is in a precarious position, but holds out hope for survival, to provide a completely honest answer would guarantee the death of the business.

Good employees would begin looking for other jobs, customers would lose confidence in your products and services and vendors would no longer extend credit. Unless one is certain of collapse and maintains no hope of making it through a difficult economic cycle, it would be wrong to do the right thing.

We live in an imperfect world. The goal of living a moral, ethical and virtuous life suggests we should always do the right thing but at the right time and place. Finding comfort in either extreme position is only avoiding the moral dilemmas that are a real part of life. We do not live in a world of absolute right and absolute wrong nor do we live in a world of only relative right and wrong. We must then embrace, not avoid the situations where moral dilemma exists and find the mean between extreme actions which is the virtuous place to be. The real life examples I have shared are ample evidence of this reality. The question “Is it ever wrong to do the right thing?” suggests that finding even one exception would provide an answer to the question. The requirement of finding even one case having been fulfilled, the answer to this years question is yes.

“Yes, it is sometimes wrong to do the right thing.”

John Pollock is the ABA Civil Right to Counsel Fellow for the Public Justice Center (PJC) in Baltimore, Maryland, where he works to establish the right for indigent people to have a lawyer when their essential rights (housing, child custody, benefits) are threatened. Previously he worked for the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Central Alabama Fair Housing Center. John graduated from Wesleyan University in 1994 and Northeastern University School of Law in 2005. He currently lives in Montgomery, Alabama and telecommutes for PJC, although he is a displaced Yankee from “up North” (raised in New York, post-college years in Boston).

In the book High Fidelity, Nick Hornby’s main character reflects upon musical tastes and opines that “what matters is what you like, not what you are like.” In other words, he believes our choices come to define us. Ever since choosing a legal career in the public interest, I have wondered whether the opposite is true: is all that matters what one chooses to do, or also the reasons for choosing to do such things? And is it possible that choosing to help others, i.e., “doing the right thing”, could ever be “wrong”?

In most scenarios, I’m quick to reject categorical concepts like “right” and “wrong”, with the relativist in me resisting the attachment of rigid terms to complex human actions and the semanticist in me wondering how something adjudged as “wrong” could at the same time continue to be the “right thing”. In fact, given my general aversion to such stark dichotomies, it is a little strange that I have found myself sucked into the legal field, where “right” and “wrong” are the parlance of everyday conversation and moral relativism is generally viewed as some sort of horrifying disease.

Yet despite my ambivalence about such absolutist terms, I nonetheless realize that I accept them in one context: I feel it is unambiguously wrong for a society to impose its sense of “rightness” on a person who is making decisions ultimately affecting only that person’s own life. For this reason, while a law prohibiting theft or murder makes sense to me, a ban on assisted suicide or gay marriage does not. Society also powerfully and effectively imposes its value judgments on other life choices in ways that do not involve the force of law, such as with careers. Those careers that place the needs of others above one’s own are typically revered and praised as “right”, while “insubstantial” careers are minimized or ignored, particularly if the individual pursuing the “insubstantial” career had the opportunity to make a different choice.

In making these judgments as a society, we little think of the pain we may cause: a person’s travels down the “right” road due to shame or guilt or pressure may cost them everything they are or could hope to be, especially because I believe that any act of selflessness performed under duress is an empty one. What word could ever attach to such a result, other than “wrong”? On the flip side, I have known bus drivers, bakers, and receptionists that have brought more joy and peace to the world and to themselves than others toiling unhappily at the noblest not-for-profits in the country and generating misery for all those around them.

This brings me to my own life. Although I know hardly anything about any organized religion, I was raised Jewish and grew up with a strong generalized sense of my debt to society and to humanity, an obligation I felt it was not my prerogative to ignore. This externalized feeling of obligation comes home forcefully to me every time I see someone sleeping on the street or work with another client who bears a staggering load of burdens that would bury me instantly were I to be in their position. There is also some part of me that acts out of a desire for approval and admiration, a part that has unconsciously bought into society’s judgment of careers like mine.

I have worried at times that the combination of societal pressure and the desire to be recognized might corrupt the very nature of my work. Were such motivations the whole truth, I would feel certain that my career of “doing the right thing” would be wrong. I might analogize to doing “good works” for the sake of getting into heaven, which I’m told is not the point by those who know more about religion than I. However, I have grown to realize that were ego and the dictates of society my primary story, my dominant feeling would be pride and guilt, not the sad pain or indignant anger that are far more frequently at the forefront. In the end, I have arrived at a place of peace by realizing that the right reasons predominate for me, however tainted they might be by the plain fact of my humanity. And in the end, I have realized that what matters is what one does, yes, but also how, and why. Only with the unity of the three can the best and “rightest” work not be subverted into “wrong”.

The 2008 debate was held on Saturday, June 14th and America's Greatest Thinker for 2008 is Craig Allen of West Linn, Oregon. A brief summary of the arguments is presented below, as well as biographical statements and their original essays.

16th Great American Think-Off Emphasizes that our Immigration System is Broken

Four finalists met last night in New York Mills, Minnesota to engage in a rhetorical battle over the question “Does immigration strengthen or threaten the United States?”  Craig Allen of West Linn, Oregon won the votes of the audience—and the gold medal and designation as “America’s Greatest Thinker”—with his deft argument that even though he did not oppose immigration the system of immigration and immigration policy in the United States is broken, encouraging an influx of illegal immigrants.  The broken system, he argues, poses a threat to the United States. 

One of Mr. Allen’s arguments was that many Americans remain fearful of immigration—hence the efforts to build a fence along our southern border with Mexico.  Mr. Allen made an effective argument that we have reached the point in America where those who disagree about immigration can no longer engage in civil conversation to find a means of fixing the system.

In the debate’s best moments the four Think-Off finalists touched on what it means to be an American, and the conversation confirmed that American identity is both complex and evolving.

The silver medal winner, Deana Cavaliere from Richfield, Minnesota, proposed that the flow of immigrants representing diverse cultures has resulted in an unpredictable mix of ideas that makes America the most innovative and wealthy country in the world.  Ms. Cavaliere suggested that this status has been placed in jeopardy today as Americans become more fearful about the economic and cultural effects of many new arrivals to our shores.

The two bronze finishers are Tom Bailey of Nashville, Tennessee, for strengthens, and Nick Thayer of St. Cloud, Minnesota, for threatens.  Mr. Bailey’s argument centered on how American education, the source of our national strength,  flowers when diversity among student and teacher groups is cultivated.  Mr. Thayer argued that the identity of Americans will be weakened if immigration levels are continued at current rates.

Members of the West Los Angeles Children’s Choir along with choir members of New York Mills students, led a sing out of patriotic songs during intermission.   The New York Mills choir members are the students of Rebecca Imsande. The director of the West Los Angeles Children's Choir is Barbara Silberg.

Next year’s 17th annual Think-Off question will be released on January 1, 2009 and will be available on the New York Mills Regional Cultural Center website.  Anyone may submit a 750 word essay to participate in the contest to be named “America’s Greatest Thinker.  This debate is sponsored every year by the New York Mills Regional Cultural Center. 

The final four Nick Thayer, Craig Allen, Deana Cavaliere, and Tom Bailey

Brief biographical statements and their original essays are presented below.

Immigration Threatens the United States by Craig R. Allen

Throughout the years, immigrants like Albert Einstein, Bob Hope, and Joseph Pulitzer have made tremendous contributions to the culture and vitality of the United States, and millions of others have labored anonymously to build and defend this nation. Today, however, the United States is threatened by continued immigration.

A century ago, Teddy Roosevelt framed his thoughts on immigration with these words. We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...

This is, of course, pure Roosevelt: blunt, to the point, and devoid of any attempt at political correctness. Nevertheless, it reflects the very core of this discussion. Driven largely by immigration past and present, society in the United States has adopted the habit of assigning ethnic labels to nearly everyone. We speak of "African Americans" or "Hispanic Americans." During the primaries, we have heard continual evaluation based upon how a candidate fared with specific voters, dividing us into ethnic groups apparently pitted against each other. We hear it suggested that "Latino voters" will decide the outcome, so apparently other votes don't count.

Before 1914, during the great period of European immigration, there were few in the Americas who could claim ownership of the country. In fact, the only legitimate claim belonged to Native Americans, and given history, I suspect they found immigration quite threatening, as they were continually assaulted and forced to relocate to make room for the new-comers. In the process, they lost much of their culture and nearly all of their land.

With the slowing of European immigration caused by two world wars, our society became more stable. Partly because of the unifying effect of those wars, existing Americans began to develop a true sense of self. During World War II, immigrants of German descent were, for the most part, accepted, while unfortunately, those of Japanese ancestry were not. The nature of the Pearl Harbor attack, coupled with obvious racial differences, undoubtedly fueled this discrimination. Although it is certainly true that some Japanese Americans served the country with distinction during those troubled times, many others were simply never given the opportunity.

So, what has changed? How do those changes threaten this country?

Today, much of society equates immigration with those who are here illegally. They believe that undocumented immigrants receive undeserved welfare, food stamps, free medical services, and burden the school systems. We hear that "these people" breed crime and steal jobs from "real Americans." Although many of these myths are undocumented urban fiction, there is just enough truth in them that they remain a common perception; one that serves to divide and polarize American society. We are forced to confront people openly breaking our laws.

More recently, some fear that every person of Middle Eastern descent is probably a terrorist. The events of September 11th, coupled with other attacks and the ongoing war, have generated a xenophobic mistrust that pervades our national psyche. We are weakened when we blindly fear people based solely upon national origin, and allow them into the country yet refuse them integration with our society.

Lastly, there is a feeling that recent immigrants wish to enjoy the benefits of living here, but have no desire to become Americans. Many Americans view requirements for bi-lingual education, court-appointed translators, and ballots printed in multiple languages as signs that the current crop of new-comers prefer that American society change to meet their needs, rather than adapt themselves to their new country. Watching a parade carrying Mexican flags makes you wonder why Americans are celebrating Cinco de Mayo.

Every society is weakened when it becomes fragmented, and immigration today threatens our society through the myths that foster fragmentation. Roosevelt sought immigration with assimilation. Today we cannot reach the more modest goal of allowing integration. The "huddled masses, yearning to be free" are not truly welcome, and E Pluribus Unum – From Many, One – has become a distant memory, not an attainable reality.

Tom Bailey, 41 years old, is the Alumni Director at University School of Nashville (where he was also once a student). He has, at one time or another, lived in England, Washington, D.C., New York City and Houston, but he was born and raised in Nashville. His jobs have ranged from tour guide at the Country Music Hall of Fame, to sheriff’s messenger, to bartender, to marketing for a publishing house, to archivist. For fun he writes, loses board games, and comes up with improbable schemes for impractical reasons.

Immigration Strengthens The United States by Tom Bailey

I am embarrassed to admit that, as a child, I bragged about ancestors who predated the Mayflower. Now I happily admit to bragging about my niece Alice who was born in China and my niece Kate who married a very good man from Ecuador. If the measure of what it means to be an American rests on respect for the individual, the willingness to work for the achievement of your dreams, the embrace of the innate value of multiple points of view, then Kate s husband Diego is far more of a true American than those espousing fear, quotas, and fences. If vibrant engagement with life and boundless curiosity are traits we like to think of as American, there can be no better example of the American character than Alice.

Immigrants come to this country to fulfill a dream of a better life. We welcome the tired, the poor, the huddled masses not because we pity them, but because we know that hard circumstances are not the measure of a person s worth or capacity. The value of the individual is not the country of his or her birth, but the content of each persons character. To let the fear of dangers posed by the few cause us to abandon this guiding principle, to abandon the many, is to betray the essence of the American dream as a shared ideal.

Those who would erect barriers against immigration rely on the rhetoric of fear. They claim that immigrants rob natives of jobs, threaten our national security, carry disease, and endanger American culture. There can be no doubt that absorbing so many people into the nation poses challenges, but it is also true that immigrants are central to our country s wellbeing. A national policy that does not approach immigration as an investment in our future prosperity ensures that our greatness and prosperity will become a relic of the past.

The voices of fear have been very potent in recent years and it is now far more difficult for both skilled and unskilled workers to gain legal entry to the United States. At the same time the size of the native born labor force has not kept pace with either the demands for cheap labor or the needs of highly skilled cutting edge industries.

The absence of foreign-born workers makes it more not less difficult for America to compete globally. According to Bill Gates, Demand for specialized technical skills has long exceeded the supply of native-born workers...we must foster an environment that enables a new generation to dream up innovations regardless of where they were born. Even Tom Ridge said As we secure America from terrorists, we don t want to risk losing the next Enrico Fermi or Albert Einstein.

The restrictions on unskilled workers combined with the labor needs of enterprises like agriculture is a prime cause of the spike in illegal immigrants. Would it not be better to allow them to become part of the visible work force rather than driving them under ground? In making their aspirations a crime we turn them into criminals.

And what of American culture? It is true that the new arrivals to our shores will change our culture, but while this may be a threat to the status quo, it is a boon to American society. With each new interaction between people from different backgrounds the society and its citizens are enriched. Changed yes, but changed for the better.

I work in a school where about 15% of the student body comes from international families (representing 35 countries). This school is by any measure test scores, colleges accepting its graduates, awards among the very best in the country. I doubt there is a single teacher, student, or parent who would argue that the diversity of the student body is anything less than a benefit to the school; rather it is a vital ingredient in the school s success.

It is hard to imagine that we will continue the march towards a more perfect union if we embrace exclusion. Is it smart to let the dangers posed by the few to cause us to withdraw our welcome of the many? Can the inclusion of people with the courage to put their old lives behind them in order to strive for a better life on unknown shores help but strengthen the nation? If we deny the poor striving to be free we are the ones who will be impoverished.

Nick Thayer is a senior political science student at St. Cloud State University. He was born in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, and moved to Minnesota with his family as a young boy. He recalls enjoying the diverse atmosphere and variety of learning experiences possible living in the heart of Minneapolis in his early childhood. Later, Nick and his family moved to Mankato. Nick enjoys grilling, reading about current events and collaborating with fellow students in video and audio productions and other artistic projects. He intends to pursue graduate studies in political science. Nick is an avid fan of SCSU hockey and Minnesota Twins baseball.

Immigration Threatens the United States by Nicholas Thayer

If one were to argue that immigration is harmful to the United States one could easily cite examples of how illegal immigration is harmful, but the same arguments would not apply to the thousands of legal immigrants that arrive at America's shores every year. But there is an overwhelming argument against legal and illegal immigration alike: immigration threatens the very core of the United States, our own identity as a nation.

Political writer Michael Walzer in Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad proposes that citizenship has two distinct aspects to it. First, there are "thin" components to citizenship. These components to citizenship are largely technical, things such as birth place or citizenship tests, green cards, and other legalities. Second, there is a much deeper aspect to citizenship, the "thick" component. Language, history, culture, a shared common vision, etc., these are "thick" aspects of citizenship. They are also unique to each country, just as the "thin" legalities are.

Consider a recent immigrant using the "thick" and "thin" idea. Take, for example, a Mexican immigrant (legal or illegal). This person has come to the United States often under the worst of conditions, to work in the worst of conditions, because this person knows he or she could make a small fortune compared to what he or she would make in Mexico. There is no ill will here, simply the preservation of this person's own livelihood and the livelihood of his or her family. But let's face it, the brown-skinned first generation immigrant from Mexico is no more a "citizen" of the United States with a piece of paper giving him or her legal status than he or she is without that legal status, especially if that person does not speak English. He or she has not participated in the shared history and culture of the American people. It would be very difficult for this Mexican immigrant to ever be truly considered an American citizen, or even more difficult, feel like an American citizen. So it is obviously not the "thin" aspect of citizenship like a legal status that makes one a real American.

So what does make one an American? America is and has been a nation of immigrants. We cannot deny this. Each wave of immigrants has brought new traditions and cultures. Unfortunately, each wave brings more and more dilution of any understanding we could ever attempt to have of what an American truly is. What is one moment uniquely and distinctly American, what has been built over our brief history, suddenly becomes something to be amended and tailored to those new immigrants so they can be included.

American culture has not had a long time to develop. It does not have a long history that binds us together like older countries and societies do. But it is time to start. There must come a point when being an American is not only a legal status, but a cultural status, and this cannot happen when virtually anyone and everyone is free to immigrate to the United States. It is important for the solidarity and continued prosperity of the country that Americans at some point stop looking back to their immigrant roots and begin to recognize our American roots. We need to understand that some of us are no longer immigrants. We have already been melted into the great American melting pot; we are now one thing, one people: Americans!

During its infancy, the United States was dependant on immigrants to build it. The problem is that the United States has been built, and has been filled to the brim with people willing to contribute. If immigration is allowed to continue, and our society continues to be "thinly" defined, we will find ourselves in a position where we have no idea who we are and where we are headed.

Yes, immigration threatens our identity as a nation. It inhibits our growth as a single people and dilutes our blossoming culture. Without a distinct American identity we will be doomed to an existence with no common bond but capitalism and the pursuit of wealth. Although this sounds like a very "American" proposition, I believe America is much more than that. As to what that is, we need to continue to discover it, but we will never be able to find out if our culture continues to be eroded through immigration, whether legal and illegal.

J. Deana Cavaliere is a recent graduate of Vesper College in Minneapolis, MN. She earned a Master of Fine Arts in Ecological Architecture. Deana loves learning and finds she thrives in the classroom, whether as teacher or student. She has combined her desire to help others achieve their academic goals with her motivation to facilitate cultural diffusion through her work with study abroad programs. She is a wife, mother, cat lover, sculptor, poet, philosopher, collage maker, motorcyclist, lecturer, designer, traveler, gardener, gourmet cook, and historian.

pro immigration by j. deana cavaliere

Up until recently, a drive through any of the multi-cultural neighborhoods in my area would often leave me disgruntled with thoughts running through my head. Why can't they call the mercado what it is, a strip mall? Why can't they speak English? Why can't they just assimilate into the American culture?!? Perhaps I have been persuaded into having these opinions; presidential candidates, mainstream media, even my own husband, a proud union member, have all influenced my thoughts on immigration. But is this what I truly believe?

A rather innocuous event helped shed light on this subject. While flipping through the glossy pages of a well-funded travel magazine, I saw all the wondrous, exotic places I could visit: private beaches, sequestered resorts, brand-name hotels…For the right price, I can rent my own little piece of America anywhere in the world. Just how much interaction with other cultures does this type of behavior afford? I recall a family vacation, standing in front of a café in Rome with my mother-in-law. She was reluctant to go in because it was a "local" restaurant. She was afraid of ordering something she wouldn't like, yet was too stubborn to take out her Italian phrase book and try to communicate.

It occurred to me while browsing through the travel magazine that when Americans go abroad, they blanket themselves in their own culture, whether for protection or as a badge of honor. In strange places, we attach ourselves to the familiar. Michel de Montaigne made similar observations on a trip across Europe on horseback in 1580. He commented in his Essays on the behavior of his fellow traveling companions:

Once out of their villages, they feel like fish out of water. Wherever they go they cling to their ways and curse foreign ones. If they come across a fellow-countryman…they celebrate the event…With a morose and taciturn prudence they travel about wrapped up in their cloaks and protecting themselves from the contagion of an unknown clime.

I have concluded that what the Hispanics, Hmong, and Somalis in my area are doing is not rejecting American society. They are only doing what is natural…surrounding themselves with the familiar. How could I, as an individual, judge these local immigrants for what appears to be basic human nature? Perhaps my sense of nationalism has clouded my judgment…

Looking to the European Union, I find inspiration. Theirs is an innovative form of government not based on physical borders, but on political philosophies. Any country in the world can apply to join the EU. Once a member, that country's citizens are free to move within and around the EU as we do from state to state in the US. In a slow but steady process, Europeans are shedding their national identities in favor of "European-ness." They can see their place in a global context.

America seems to be lagging far behind in this process of globalization, with the immigration issue a glaring example. Building walls and fences, adding more bureaucracy, increasing security…to what end will these actions achieve? Build a wall to keep people out, and soon its function will be to keep people in. A different mindset is in order. We must strive as a culture to find our place in the world. A simple first step would be viewing other nation's peoples as our PEERS.

Inscribed on Montaigne's library ceiling was the quote, "I am a man, nothing human is foreign to me." In that spirit, I have engaged the idea of immigration in its purest sense. The diffusion of cultures is a founding principal of our country and fuels the efforts of globalization. So now I stop and do some shopping at the mercados. Tasting exotic foods and meeting foreign people happens not too far from my own back yard. The exchange of cultural information is what will keep this country strong and vibrant. It starts on a personal level.