Back to the top

Letter from A.X. Perez

Re: "Platonic Ideal of an Asshole" by A.X. Perez

It is a criminal offense to enter the US illegally. Since people entering the US illegally are are arrested for this crime, subject to criminal charges if they break US laws, they and any kids they bear in the US are subject to US jurisdiction (Unlike diplomats who have diplomatic immunity or Indians who were considered citizens of nations whose territory coincided with US territory and were therefor under tribal and not US jurisdiction) . Therefor the children of illegal aliens born in the US (also tourists, people on student visas, etc.) are US Citizens.

Consider that Citizens United and the Slaughterhouse cases make corporations citizens same same a flesh and blood person as per decisions made by SCOTUS and the idea of illegal aliens' kids being citizens is not some disconcerting. Also, the authors of the 14th did not intend it to cover the kids of illegal aliens won't wash, the concept of illegal alien as we apply it today (immigration based on quotas) post dates the 14th Amendment. To argue that the 14th Amendment was not meant to apply to illegal aliens because the folks back then never thought of it and would have excluded them if they had sounds suspiciously (to me, at least) like argument that if the founding fathers did not mean the 2nd Amendment to included assault rifles because such did not exist back then and they would have excluded them if they'd only known.

Regardless, The Supreme Court has not ruled specifically on a case of a child born of an illegal alien in the US being a citizen in the modern era (post WWII). If and when such a case coess up I will cheerful bet on its outcome at the appropriate odds.

Of course, the Constitution can be amended, and the Amendment carefully crafted to protect most major case law involving the 14th Amendment. However, Mr. Trump and his followers seem disinterested in the difficulties in doing such. This worries me. What worries me the most is that Mr. Trump is acting as a stalking horse to weaken the Republican Party by bollixing up honest debate with his media follies (comedic show meaning). This mission frees him from any need to make intelligent proposals, just ones that make good extreme right sound bites for the media.

BTW, even if it turns out that the Courts throw out the birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens born in the US, I must point out that I pointed out the 14th Amendment issues before CNN and Fox said anything, or at least thought of the same issue independently. One personally owned horn has now sounded a note.

A.X. Perez
[email protected]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author

Back to the top

Letter from The Editor

I got an inquiry from a fellow wanting to know if I could make him a web-commerce site. Being old and all that stuff I had to decline, but if any of our readers do that kind of thing, you are invited to contact the fellow with a bid/proposal:

I sell garand (enbloc) clips and ancillary items. My first website was made by someone in TX and I'm not real pleased. I just need a simple website with credit card interface, a shopping cart and some help getting good placement on google. That's bascially it. If you are interested let me know and send me some examples of your work currently out on the web. My new URL would be www.enblocs.com

Jeff Brack
[email protected]
www.garandclips.com Your source for U.S. made Mil-Spec Garand clips

Tell him we sent you!

Ken Holder, Editor
[email protected]
The Libertarian Enterprise

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author

Back to the top

Letter from Tyrone Johnson

Hi, Ken. I thought I should mention that, although I continue to be interested in the success of Silentvault, I am now working full time with the Digital Cash Alliance which promotes private, anonymous, digital cash.

If you have any questions about my work, please feel free to stop by our web page at digitalcash.to or send questions my way. Thank you.

Tyrone Johnson
[email protected]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author

Back to the top

Letter from TJ Mason

RE: "Not a Jefferson Among Them" by L. Neil Smith

This is a difficult question. As a Libertarian, I know both that you can't legislate someone into Heaven, and that the First Amendment makes it unconstitutional to try. Doesn't prohibit exhortation (which the Progs are trying their hardest to accomplish), but that goes both ways (as long as the Progs are also prohibited from making their non- sexual agenda and their prohibitions on exhortation the law of the land). As an imperfect Christian, I know that none of us should throw the first stone on matters of sexual mores—but that Christ taught by example that it is acceptable to overthow the tables of the crony capitalists. And as someone who occasionally can rub two brain cells together, I know that immeasurable damage has been done to the anti- Progressive cause by politicians who lack that advantage and demonstrate it when discussing sexual issues. (Can't any Republican politician who objects to abortion on moral grounds at least avoid making up absurdities about it?)

On the other hand, there are few Tea Party members who are not Christian Conservative, and many of them want certain Christian fundamentals (particularly regarding homosexuality and abortion) as part of the platform. The problem is that thirty years of unrestricted Liberal indoctrination in the schools makes these Christian fundamentals out of reach for most of the electorate under 40, or maybe 50. A lot of these people are beginning to wake up about the fallacies of progressive Socialism, but if we challenge them on morality, they will at best stay at home if they refuse to pull the lever for the other team.

Neil makes the case (see also my essay "The Forces Array'd" that if the Evangelical and Libertarian vote can't come together in 2014 and 2016, we'll be on the ropes.

That means keeping the Revival separate from the elections. I'm not saying that it's not needed (by me as much as most), just that we have to keep our political persuasion and our moral persuasion—at least insofar as sexual morals—separate during the election cycle.

And Neil outlines the policy: not one cent of federal tax money—in (fairly large) part derived from Christians—is to be spent on supporting abortion or homosexual relations (that includes federal support to local education). Neil would (rightly) include the states, but the First Amendment only takes these decisions away from the federal government. Christians can continue to preach; our opponents can continue to ignore us, or to argue against us, but they can't shut us up.

That does not mean we have to become abortion advocates; it just means that we emphasize that we will not allow the Progs to force us to support abortion against our will, and will not stop us from preaching and teaching against it. Whether we win hearts and minds in the future depends on our preaching, but we won't win them by attempting to use the power of the ballot box to force our will on the opposition. Besides, that's the Prog's game. Is it not sufficient—at least in the short term—to stand our moral ground without forcing the ground politically. It's not giving up to fight the battle individual by individual, soul by soul, instead of trying to take the high ground to dictate a solution that the majority doesn't presently want to accept - and then losing not just on this point, but on everything.

That's an unpalatable truth, but here's another: even with all the apparent fraud perpetrated by the Dems in the 2012 election, almost certainly enough to have swung the election even without the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, it's arguable that Romney would not have lost if millions of Christian evangelicals hadn't refused to vote for a Mormon. Romney was certainly not my first choice (that would have been Cain, even with the infidelity allegations—see above) but there is no question in my mind that he would have been better than the continuation of the current kleptocracy. Even if the result would have been it's replacement by a less visible kleptocracy that at least paid lip service to the Constitution.

If we're to Save the Country, we must approach salvation one soul at a time. We can't legislate salvation, or morality. And if we're to save the Country, we must oppose the forces that encourage abortion, both though promoting it's legality and through creating despair which makes it an acceptable "choice." We must demonstrate that Christianity is the right choice; not attempt to force it at gunpoint, any more than we can let the Progressives force their viewpoints at gunpoint, many of which are as or more damaging than their perspective on abortion. I'm hardly the poster child for that thrust,

I know that many people believe that abortion is murder. I certainly understand that viewpoint, but a case can be made that not all abortion is murder (The statements and ambiguity of Exodus 21:22-25 are discussed at this link, but Deuteronomy 21:18-21 clearly gives the right of the high justice to the parents (though admittedly it presumes that a wanton child has been born), and a number of passages cite the "ripping" of pregnant women to kill both mother and unborn child, or the death of young children, as part of a judgement of God both for and against Israel (Hosea 13:16; II Kings 2:23-24; II Kings 15:16; II Kings 8:12; I Samuel 15:3; Deuteronomy 2:34, 3:6;

TJ Mason
@OneAmericanVoice
[email protected]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author

Back to the top

This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)
TLE AFFILIATE