Francis Fukuyama has the cover story in the current issue of Prospect. National identity continues to be understood and experienced in ways that sometimes make it a barrier for newcomers who do not share the ethnicity and religious background of the native-born. National identity has always been socially constructed; it revolves around history, symbols, heroes and the stories that a community tells about itself. This sense of attachment to a place and a history should not be rubbed out, but it should be made as open as possible to new citizens.
There are some good observations in here. I want to make an observation about his observations about North America though. He looks to America as the best example of the culture that is rooted in civics rather than heritage. I agree. However, I think thats one of the primary fault lines in American politics today... Whether America is about principals or people, Constitutional rights, or Judeo Christian heritage. Fukuyama argues that liberal positions in American politics represent a kind of multi-culturalism. In some cases I think he is right, but I don't agree with all of his examples. The right of gay people to get married seems an individual right to me, and not a social or collective right. I do, however, see the anti-immigration and cultural conservativism movements as a kind of pseudo-ethnic nationalism that would create a more closed culture here (which would be, by Fukuyama's argument, more vulnerable to domestic terrorism). Canada may be the source of modern multiculturalism, but I think its simultaneously a model for the sort of national transformations required in Europe. Canada's english majority transformed their country's identity from one that was primarily tied to the British Empire to one which all of it's citizens can connect with. I think there is something to learn from that. Identity and Migration | 
