I found very few cogent critiques of Chua's op-ed piece published in the Washington Post. Instead, most of your arguments were based upon the use of inflammatory words such as "hate" and "nativist" and very few were based upon actual refutation of Chua's points.

Cutting to the chase at the end, you seem to want to hold us to the view Emma Lazarus espoused in her poem that is engraved on the Statue of Liberty. A noble thought, but it has a historical context. The words do not stand alone. At the time, this nation needed workers to expand. Those workers did not need to be particularly skilled, just willing to work. And they came, and for the most part we made room, welcomed their contributions and together built the greatest economic powerhouse the world has seen. The times have changed. We no longer need unskilled workers in the numbers they are coming. You characterize Chua's entire critique of unrestricted immigration thus: "Despite her admission of the need for unskilled labor, Chua's mantra might as well be 'give me your ambitious, your rich, your educated masses yearning to make money.'" Perhaps. However, the skilled and ambitious are what we need now. The unskilled are what we needed then.

I saw no cogent refutation of Chua's points about unrestricted immigration and that it would inevitably lead to disintegration, as it has with all empires in the past. I saw no refutaion of the idea that our imperative is to our nation, to make it the most prosperous and free nation to its citizens and thereby serve as an example to the world of what justice can do with a free and prosperous people. Instead I saw that we should open our borders to anyone who can get here and that our duty is to take them all, no matter what the cost.

At the beginning of your essay you took Chua to task for making compromises. Needless to say, rather than critique those compromises, you characterized them as being compromises with hate. Perhaps you have no critique of them and the only possible argument is ad hominem. It is easy to maintain moral purity. After all that requires no compromise, and construction of a philosophical structure atop unexamined and undefended bases that are assumed to be axiomatic is simple. The world, however, operates by satisfying as many different and diverse views as is needed to achieve a working majority. Of necessity, this requires compromises. Chua, it seems to me, offers a much more workable future for this nation and for the world than do you.