posttrib
MEDIOCRE 
Weather Updates

Expanding definition of immigrant

SEND US YOUR OPINION: Letters to the editor should be no more than 300 words. The Post-Tribune reserves the right to edit or reject any letter. All letters must be signed and include your name, address and telephone number for verification. To send us your letter to the editor, mail to: 350 N. Orleans St., Chicago, IL 60654; or e-mail to ptvoice@post-trib.com.

Updated: April 20, 2014 12:26AM



I can sense by the tone of Grace Turner’s March 13 letter that she has nothing but good intentions regarding immigration reform. However, when anyone tries to back up their view by saying, “except for the Indians, all of us were immigrants,” I feel it is necessary to respectfully disagree.

I have never been, nor will I ever be, classified as an immigrant. My parents were born in the U.S., and I was, too. All four of my grandparents legally entered this country from Europe in the early 1900s. Whatever immigration regulations there were at that time were followed and conditions for U.S. citizenship were met.

Too often the term “immigration reform” means changing or adjusting current immigration standards to suit particular individuals or groups of people.

I don’t believe Ms. Turner’s cause is any further supported by her statement that New Mexico was a former province of Mexico. The key word there is “was.”

The only history I am concerned with today is the one that makes me a U.S. citizen, and not an immigrant, in 2014.

Mark Ashmann

Griffith



© 2014 Sun-Times Media, LLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission. For more information about reprints and permissions, visit www.suntimesreprints.com. To order a reprint of this article, click here.