I understand the politics of the situation.  It is hardly an easy prospect in a time of such intense economic downturn to consider selling the American people on the idea of accepting and adopting more people when they have been so conditioned to believe that these people are "taking their jobs" or that they are "stealing government services".  But I thought Obama sold himself as a teacher and he talked at length about the team of rivals and it is disappointing that he seems to be excluding "liberal" (for lack of a better term) voices in a number of areas.  What would the harm be in having your head of the civil rights division be more intensely committed to civil rights than some others given how few people in Washington are these days?  Its just one guy in a sea of people who often don't care or are openly hostile to the concept.  I thought we were going to get some "new voices" in the debate - see new perspectives - that would fullfil that promise of at least teaching - how much they could push the action in another direction would obviously be questionable in this environment - but at least we might be able to start to have a more intelligent conversation about the issue.

  Perhaps, for some reason not explained here or by the Times, Obama surrendered to "right-wing extremists" and backed off nominating a man who could have been confirmed. it is at least equally plausible, though, that he backed off due to a lack of support among people who would not fairly be characterized as "right-wing extremists."

My father waited 3 years to immigrate legally to the U.S. My mother waited 7 years to immigrate legally to the U.S. My mother-in-law waited 3 years. My brother-in-law (another side of the family) waited 4 years. My sister-in-law (opposite side of family) waited 4 years.

Most of my family are Americans by choice and very proud of it.

It's just that neither was or is a particularly good choice.