We applaud the efforts of those students who protested the xenophobic proposals made by Senator Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) during a speech at the Institute of Politics last week. In calling for 20 percent reductions in legal immigration levels each year for the next five years, Simpson disrespects our national immigrant heritage.

We were happily surprised to see a Harvard protest transpire in the proper context, at least at first. The students protested on the street in front of the Kennedy School, maintaining a stubborn yet dignified position to argue with Senator Simpson. Dissension to speakers at the forum is wholly positive when presented in such a manner. Unfortunately, however, when the Simpson protest moved to the inside of the K-School (as happened with the pro-life sign hangers at Senator Arlen Specter's (R-Pen.) speech last spring and with the walkout at Charles Murray's bell curve harangue last fall) the ideal of free speech was undercut. Approximately 30 students walked out two minutes after Simpson's speech had begun. Protests are fairer and more effective when free speech is maintained for all.

It is the moral obligation of all Americans to support generous levels of legal immigration. This country was founded on the notion of liberty and freedom for all. The hopes for streets of gold provided by economic freedom; for the open practice of private beliefs permitted by religious freedom; for the ability to speak one's mind and act upon it through democratic government--these are the ideals which fueled past immigration and still power the citizens we welcome to our shores today.

The only non-immigrant Americans are those whose ancestors were driven away by the settlers of the New World. By limiting immigration, Simpson is denying his own past and limiting the country's future. America will suffer politically, economically and socially from the petrification which would result from the elimination of immigration. The principles of openness and freedom which guided our founding fathers must be maintained if this experiment in multicultural democracy is to be preserved in a vigorous manner. Furthermore, Simpson's legislation would also create a second-class citizenship status in America by denying legal immigrants who have become naturalized U.S. citizens public assistance benefits until they have worked in this country for at least 10 years.

Illegal immigration, on the other hand, distorts the entity of the nation-state. The United States has no business abrogating responsibility to protect its borders. No one should call for a subordination of American sovereignty, especially on such a blatantly obvious issue of whom we call a citizen. To do so is to threaten the rational political senses embodied by this state. We do not desire a "country without borders," as a matter of practicality; those who do should act for change within the system instead of attempting to subvert it. But leaders like Sen. Simpson have a responsibility to challenge the forces of nativism and xenophobia.

The recent rightward shift of the political spectrum does necessitate action on the part of the federal government. Sen. Simpson argues, "People across the land feel frustrated about the immigration situation. Unless we reform legislation, the American dream will turn into the American nightmare." To a certain extent, the Senator is correct in his prediction.

If liberalism and toleration are to survive in America, then this country's leadership must treat the greater populace with the proper respect due to citizens. So long as the position of middle-class Americans cannot be credibly portrayed as threatened by immigration, then this country's borders will remain open to legal immigrants. We applaud the committee in the House of Representatives for splitting HR 2202 into two separate bills dealing with legal and illegal immigrants. According to the Urban Institute, 95 percent of non-refugee immigrants never go on welfare, and legal immigrants contribute $25 billion more in taxes than they take away in benefits each year.

What the Asian American Association, Black Students Association, RAZA and others were fighting for last Monday night was precisely the preservation of the American dream. In their pamphlets and petitions, they call on the Congress to separate the issues of legal and illegal immigration for the purposes of saving legal immigration. This is a practical aim and should be pursued by politicians interested in ideas more than lip service. The students label Simpson's proposal S. 1394 and his House-cohort Representative Lamar Smith's H.R. 2202 as "outrageous." They might better be termed "un-American." In this way, students could more ably fight a patriotic battle for the immigrant soul of this country.