Words Fail Me Dept.

     When you’re married to a murder-mystery addict, you wind up watching a lot of British TV, as the British are the world’s acknowledged masters of the murder mystery. That naturally leads to reading British murder mysteries, of which there are God’s plenty. Those, too, have their fascinations. And of course, if you’re a news-obsessive, you start following the news from Britain, out of curiosity about just how many murders really occur in the Sceptered Isle per unit time.

     Well, as it happens, there are actual murders in merrie olde England. But not in the profusion their panoply of murder mysteries would suggest. Why, had they been not fictional but actual, the murders in Midsomer County alone would have depopulated the nation.

     However, that might be about to change:

     Former Conservative minister Edwina Currie has drawn attention after suggesting that a brothel would be needed near a rural English village where about 1,200 young male asylum seekers are expected to be accommodated.
     Currie made the remark during a discussion on Times Radio about asylum accommodation at a former military site near Little Piddington, Buckinghamshire.
     In a video from the discussion, Currie raised concerns about the potential social impact of placing a large number of young men in a small rural community.
     “I’m not sure I’m going to be allowed to say this, you’re probably going to shut me up in no time at all,” Currie said before making the comment.
     “But the obvious thing that 1,200 young men are going to need in the middle of a village like Little Piddington is a brothel.” Currie immediately acknowledged that such a facility was unlikely to be provided.

     As my highly intelligent and worldly-wise Gentle Readers might expect, Currie’s comment has drawn quite a lot of attention and outrage. But here at Liberty’s Torch, we go beneath the outrage. We plumb for the true horror, the Old Ones that lie dreaming in sunken R’lyeh, ready to awaken when Mankind is ready for its Ultimate Orgy. And why should that celebration of bloodletting not begin in Britain? Indeed, why would the Old Ones prefer any other clime?

     Edwina Currie is an intelligent woman. She was certainly able to predict with high accuracy what her remark would elicit. And she was not disappointed… unless she hoped for other intelligent persons to make the obvious inference from her statement. As far as I’m aware, that inference remains undrawn.

     So let us sojourn to the imaginary realm where Edwina Currie’s fanciful suggestion is realized. A brothel – a legally certified and regulated house of ill repute, where customers can purchase sexual services – is established in Piddington. Further questions now arise:

• Who is going to provide those sexual services?
• How will those migrant Third Worlders afford them? Will the British State provide them as a “benefit?”
• And will those Third World young men be interested in purchasing them, anyway?

     Let us look past the old jokes about State-provided goods and services. Yes, government invariably ruins whatever it touches. That’s why sensible peoples either confine their States in bands of steel or abjure them altogether. Let us ask rather what those young male Third Worlders really want. Can it be made a “market commodity” without repealing the laws of Nature?

     Young male Third World “asylum seekers” have unleashed a plague of rape and other assaults upon British women. British women. Not other Third Worlders. They’re uninterested in women from their homelands. They want the good stuff: the White women. It might even be why they came to Britain.

     So it would be pointless to staff the Piddington Fulfillment Centre for Human Needs with Third World women – if, indeed, there are any Third World women in Britain who would agree to be employed there. The staff must be White British women. Would any number of White British women apply for those posts? Knowing what young male Third Worlders have done to their sister Britons?

     I think it unlikely. But even more unlikely is the prospect of young male Third Worlders going to the Piddington Fulfillment Centre for Human Needs in the first place. These are not civilized people accustomed to civilized dealings with others. They’re savages from savage places, where all that matters is what they can get away with. They probably like rape as much for its redolence of power as they do for “getting a leg over.”

     Yes, I’m serious. And, I think, so was Edwina Currie. What better demonstration of the folly of admitting tens of thousands of savages to the Sceptered Isle could there be than a State-regulated and subsidized brothel whose putative customers ignore it completely?

     The political Establishment of the United Kingdom is among the most perverse and hostile in the world today. Yet there remain a few Conservatives willing to give true coloration to the horrors the State continues to inflict upon helpless, wholly disarmed Britons. Edwina Currie appears to be one. Don’t condemn her. Make use of the weapon she’s given you.

     The pillage of Piddington, a tiny Oxfordshire village, may yet awaken British men to their duties. If so, rivers of blood will follow, for once his wrath is awakened, the Saxon knows little of restraint.

The Wrath Of The Awakened Saxon

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy — willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

[Rudyard Kipling]

"If Diversity Means..."

     Good morning, Gentle Reader. Yesterday was extremely strenuous. I give thanks this morning for a solid night’s sleep and a zero agenda for this day in the Year of Our Lord 2026. Those two blessings don’t often coincide.

     This morning I’d like to talk about settled ideas. Individuals have them: decisions they’ve made and carved into stone, such that they seem not to require reconsideration. When such an idea becomes prevalent among a group of people, it insinuates itself into other arrangements and customs. A challenge to it can seem like an insurrection.

     The settled idea itself may have superseded a previous idea that seemed equally settled – fundamental to “the way things ought to be.” Such a process is almost never sharp or sudden. It usually takes hold of a society gradually, as events mass force behind the new idea. There’s often a period of antinomy, during which both ideas coexist and appear equally strong and settled. When that period passes, the superseded idea becomes unpleasant to contemplate, in a “how could we ever have believed that?” fashion.

     It’s in the nature of settled ideas that they’re never logically incontestable. They’re not mathematical theorems with solid modus ponens proofs behind them. They develop from events, the patterns in them, and our reactions to them.

     Now for today’s graphic:

     The United States and the European cultures from which it originally sprang were not “diverse” in today’s sense. They were as racially, ethnically, and creedally exclusionary as anyone could possibly imagine, though in this case imagination is unnecessary. We have the history, and it is unambiguous. The treaties that make up what’s known as the Peace of Westphalia, which gave us the modern nation-state, are explicit in that regard.

     Today’s situation arose from an idea that was never really “settled,” in the sense I have in mind. Rather, it was politically imposed on the American people. It took hold due to a lingering sense of guilt – undeserved guilt – over “the legacy of slavery” and, to a lesser extent, the history of Anglo-Saxon exclusion of “lesser peoples.” It was one of the first fruits of post-World War II political activism among persons on the Left. The 1964 Civil Rights Act provides a convenient date of origin for that idea’s period of “settled-ness.”

     The sixty-two years since have brought us to the graphic above. Let it suffice to say that the “settled idea” of 1964 that “We’re all alike and we can all get along” has fallen.

     The new idea, “Whites should have their own homelands!” is not yet absolutely settled, but it’s getting there. Anti-“diversity” sentiment has risen sharply and appears likely to become socially dominant before I die. It didn’t spring from political activism or some current of thought in the universities. It arose from the events of recent decades, from crime statistics, from social and cultural clashes, and from the growing sense among Americans – especially Euro-Whites – that their nation is no longer safe for them… that, in a practical sense, it’s being taken from them by hostile forces.

     When an idea settles upon a people as a result of objectively observable events, it’s likely to have longevity. When it displaces a diametrically opposed idea, political upheaval and violence are often among the consequences. Indeed, we should expect them.

     That’s the enveloping significance of the graphic above. It didn’t take elaboration or promulgation by intellectuals to foster this rising idea. It was a grass-roots development if there’s ever been anything of the kind. It’s being fought by the full force of the elites and the political Establishment. It will take quite a bit of battering before one side wins and the other loses.

     While the battle rages, those Lucite shields over the deodorant will proliferate. Decent Americans will have to cope. The longer we must cope, the more intense will the combat become. And don’t kid yourself: there will be bloodshed. Don’t let any of that blood be yours, Gentle Reader.

     “No force is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.” –Victor Hugo

Out Of Uniform

     This morning, Black Dumpling, a uniquely intelligent and provocative X poster, asks this critical question:

This is the question.

If an invasion fired only arms one out of one hundred of their soldiers is it unethical to open fire?

What if those other 99 are explicitly there to serve as cover and the one out of a hundred only starts shooting after they're deep within your territory… https://t.co/qZsVxSSm33

— BLACK DUMPLING™ (@BlackDumpling) July 30, 2026

     Underneath BD’s question is another: the question of the hour. Considering how critical the answer is to many other questions, it’s a wonder that it hasn’t been explicitly asked.

Are we at war?
How do we decide? * * *

     I don’t know of many periods in recorded history comparable to this one. There have been large-scale migrations in the past, often motivated by political upheaval, famine, or destructive weather. In 1971, an estimated 10 million Bengalis fled into India, to escape West Pakistani forces’ ferocious attempt to suppress East Pakistan’s moves toward regional autonomy. Those events et sequelae touched off a war between West Pakistan and India, and gave birth to the nation we call Bangla Desh.

     But the immense flood of migrants into these United States, mainly pouring over our somewhat porous southern border, can’t be ascribed to any of the “usual causes.” It’s essentially economic in nature: Third Worlders looking for economic opportunity. That motivation even applies to the agents of Mexican and South American drug cartels.

     That flood has been called an invasion… perhaps not always metaphorically. But if it were taken seriously as an invasion, we would be forced to ask Who is invading us? The invaders’ ethnicities are scattered rather than uniform. The great majority bear no weapons and carry no standards. No nation has declared that a state of war exists between it and the U.S.

     Now, just because no government has said that a war is in progress doesn’t mean that a war isn’t in progress. What constitutes a state of war? is a tough question to answer definitively. Time was, for a government to order an armed man across another nation’s borders was deemed an act of war. But once again, the migrants are nearly all unarmed when they wetback our borders. And no government will say that it has ordered them to penetrate these United States.

     We’re in a situation that the usual understandings of war and peace fail to cover. We need clarity desperately.

* * *

     By the most trusted estimates, illegal aliens now make up nearly 10% of the population of our nation. Other estimates are higher still. The destabilization of the American economy, the large increase in robberies and crimes of violence in alien-heavy districts, and the formation of de facto exclaves within our borders have the nation in a state of crisis.

     As Robert Higgs has shown us, a crisis provides an opportunity for a government to increase its powers and exactions. Rahm Emanuel has said so explicitly:

     You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.

     A serious crisis allows The State to act extra-legally, with “necessity” as its rationale. People are sympathetic to the plea of “necessity,” especially if the crisis at issue directly affects them. But as Isabel Paterson wrote, increases in political power to deal with a crisis are seldom entirely retracted:

     The difficulty of taking back powers once granted is illustrated in the repeal of the Prohibition Amendment; although it was demanded and carried by overwhelming sentiment of the citizens, the article of repeal contained a proviso which would retain numerous Federal jobs; it was impossible to make a clean sweep of the pernicious usurped power.

     In that sense, the migrant flood constitutes two kinds of crisis: one that threatens the integrity and stability of the federal and state governments, and another that threatens the freedom, prosperity, and security of the American people.

     Black Dumpling’s question addresses both crises. If the illegal-alien flood into the U.S. were recognized as an invasion, albeit of a novel sort, we would recognize the illegals as non-uniformed invaders. Under the laws of war, they would have no rights. They would be “outlaw” in the old sense of lacking the law’s protections. Shooting them on sight would be perfectly licit.

     The prospect may horrify. But is it worse than the prospect of accepting the invaders – of tacitly conceding that the invasion is beyond our power to counter?

     Those are among the most difficult questions I can imagine. The aliens are much like a swarm of hungry locusts. None of them are wholly innocent; all have broken the laws of the United States. But summary execution is an extreme penalty for wetbacking the border. And granting the federal government permission to militarize the whole country on the strength of the illegal-alien tide would have far-reaching consequences for the future.

     Perhaps we’re not looking at it the right way. Or praying enough. You decide.

Hard Lines

     I’ve been seeing a lot of propaganda such as the following:

We see this situation every day. It's actually VERY common.
Should a person in this situation be deported? 🤔 pic.twitter.com/G5X57mTtgx

— Gary M (@gman5180) May 17, 2026

     It’s a tug at the heartstrings. The poor child had no idea what was going on when her mother decided to wetback the border. She’s lived 18 years in the comfort and security of the United States, with all its riches and opportunities. In all justice, can we deport her for what her mother did?

     The empathetic response is to say “No, we’ll find another way.” Which is what the propagandist wants you to say. But that has implications. Back the child’s age off a wee bit. What if she’s 14? Or 10? Or 6? Or still in the cradle? The inclination of the empathetic is still not to penalize the child for the sin of her parents. That naturalizes her parents right along with her. You wouldn’t want the poor tyke to be shorn of her parents, would you?

     For that matter, what if Mom didn’t get knocked up until after she’d illegally entered the U.S.? Once again, her daughter is a helpless bystander in the matter. Birthright citizenship makes her a citizen from the instant she emerges from the womb. Add the humanitarian position that a child should not be unnecessarily parted from her parents, and that hauls her parents into legality right along with her.

     The law is supposed to be definite as many human propositions are not. It’s supposed to have a hard line around it, such that any person of ordinary intelligence can always know on which side of that line he stands. That isn’t always the case, of course. Contemporary “law” is filled with ambiguities. They’re often put there by lawmakers deliberately, to expand the powers of the State. Immigration and naturalization law is only one such case.

     The debates about illegal migration may bring about a change in how citizenship and legal residency are determined. But this aspect of the matter will continue to bedevil us. Children are especially vulnerable to the misdeeds of their parents. Americans are second to none in their inclinations to protect children. If we write new immigration and naturalization laws that do have hard lines around them, but preserve the tradition that one born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen from birth, then in cases such as the above, we’ll be compelled to separate children from their parents. Some of those children will become wards of the State.

     I cannot find a compromise position that would deal “fairly” with all cases. But as a departed friend liked to say, “fair” is just a sound that humans make now and then. It has no fixed meaning. Ask any minor child prone to shrieking that “It’s not fair!” Don’t expect an answer you can rely on in all cases.

Dealing With Them

     I’ve been encountering a fair number of graphics like the one below:

     We all know what the point is. Look at those plaintive faces! Look at the kids, so in terror of being deported, even if they don’t know what “deported” means. Such innocence! How could anyone want to kick such nice people out of the United States? What about Emma Lazarus’s poem!

     Yes, yes. It plucks the heartstrings. It makes us question ourselves. It forces a hard look at what it means to enforce the borders after-the-fact. All that and more for the price of a cheap graphic.

     We should ask ourselves all those questions. It’s ethically mandatory. When we set out to enforce a law that previous administrations allowed millions to break, we must know what we’re about: the challenges, the costs, the risks, and where to place the blame.

     An illegal alien is a lawbreaker ab initio. He gets no credit for not breaking any other laws. He gets no credit for being self-supporting and responsible, or for being a pillar of the Undocumented-American community. He should get a shred of sympathy for believing that the new administration would perpetuate the previous one’s folly. He should not be tortured or brutalized, just deported with all his kith and kin.

     That’s the law.

* * *

     One of my favorite writers, Greg Bear, gave us this powerful insight in his novel Anvil of Stars:

     “No villain comes in black, screaming obscenities. All evil has children, homes, regard for self, fear of enemies.”

     The enemy – for now, at least – is human. Vulnerable, fallible, and mortal. But he’s still the enemy. He must be dealt with. Bear’s novel is a masterpiece for depicting what that would mean on the largest imaginable scale. I can’t think of another fiction that brings it home so vividly.

     The lawbreaker is a special category of enemy. Perhaps he meant no harm to anyone. When the subject is illegal immigrants, that’s probably the case more often than not. But he’s a lawbreaker. If we believe in the law, and in enforcing the law evenhandedly, he must go: hopefully, without violence.

     Granted that the perfect enforcement of the law is beyond our abilities. Some illegal aliens will never be discovered, and so will remain within our borders. That is not an argument for declining to enforce the law as best we can. Those illegals we can identify must be expelled. Not only has the public demanded it; maintaining general respect for the law requires it.

     The late Gonzalo Lira spoke of “moral hazard:” the consequence of allowing oneself (or others) exceptions from the law. The concept applies not only to statute law but to the ethical laws that make a peaceful, civilized society possible. Moral hazard is what makes such exceptions dangerous, for they speak broadly: “If we can get away with it, why not?”

     If you’ve encountered the term weaponized empathy, this is where it’s most potent. That graphic and others much like it attempt to weaponize your empathy. “They look so innocent and defenseless! Let them stay.” It’s insidiously seductive. It invokes your compassionate nature in opposition to your interests and those of the whole nation.

     We are not somehow evil for insisting that the law be enforced as written. The evil resides with those who sought to nullify the law de facto by not enforcing it. They were trying to serve their interests: their desire for permanent power. We are not required to oblige them.

     Have a nice day.

War News

     I could write about any of many things today, but the envelope into which the most recent events fit is the Second American Civil War.

     Minnesota and California have practically declared themselves to be in insurrection. Excuse me, what did you say? President Trump cut a deal with Tim Walz? That’s nice. What’s been happening since then?

     The insurrectionists are largely organized, though some are responding spontaneously. Some are native to the districts they trouble; others are bused in. They’re young and old, armed and unarmed.

     They’re unified in one thing only: their opposition to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency’s attempt to locate, detain, and expel illegal aliens. President Trump has given ICE carte blanche to fulfill its duties. Some of what’s happened has struck even conservative observers as excessive. The insurrectionists have capitalized on the two deaths to date by shouting “Nazis!” at peak volume… mostly at ordinary private citizens.

     There’s little point in trying to change the label. The American Left has gone to war against the Administration, the immigration laws, and the electoral system. What more is required to deem the Left in a state of insurrection?

     The Left has gone “all in.” It has fully mobilized its financial and personal resources for the conflict. The Democrat Party, while giving lip service to “the rule of law,” is aligned with the insurrectionists. Indeed, its hope of political survival rests on their success.

     There are only two ways to quell a rebellion: by surrendering to it, or by defeating it. Don’t expect President Trump to surrender to it. But defeating it will require more dramatic action than merely having ICE agents detain suspected illegal aliens and deport the ones who can’t establish that they’re here legally.

     Blood has already been spilled. There will be more.

     I hope the National Guard need not be dispatched to the loci of insurrection with free-to-fire rules of engagement. But it’s a real possibility. Were President Trump to federalize them and send them forth, would they be willing to obey his orders as Commander-in-Chief? It might require them to act against people they know, their neighbors.

     This isn’t Armageddon yet. But things are not looking good. Stay tuned.

     (For my views on the illegal-alien crisis, see this Baseline Essay.)

Smith, Jones, And Coming To America 2026

     There’s quite a bit of contention over why immigrants to our shores seek to come here. Yet the answer generalizes neatly:

• Immigrant Smith comes for an improved chance to get something: e.g., freedom from persecution or a materially better life;
• Immigrant Jones comes to serve a superior mandate.

     Those motivations sometimes blend.

     We saw Smiths from Europe almost exclusively during the “open immigration” period from the end of the Civil War up to the 1965 Hart/Celler Act. Since then, there’s been a mixture of Smiths and Joneses. The Smiths of recent years have included a significant number of predators and gang affiliates from Mexico and Central America. The Joneses have largely been Muslims.

     President Trump has put great emphasis on stanching the flow of illegal migrants and migrants from hostile cultures. In doing so, he’s nudged the balance back toward the European Smiths: persons from largely Christian cultures who could be expected to assimilate. This is a good thing. The “unmeltables” have greatly exacerbated our racial and ethnic tensions. Several ethnic exclaves, particularly in the Southwest, are populated largely by “unmeltables” and illegals.

     But of course, there are persons on the Left who condemn Trump’s changes as “inhumane.” By their standards, it’s a violation of our ethics to insist that newcomers actually become law-abiding Americans… first and foremost, by complying with our immigration laws. The Dishonorable Charles Schumer (D, NY) has openly defended the illegals and vowed to seek a “pathway to citizenship” for them:

Chuck Schumer: “Our ultimate goal is to get a path to citizenship for all 11 million or however many undocumented there are here."

I'ts right out in the open. https://t.co/KmvyjIN5xb pic.twitter.com/XFlStXb1BF

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) January 1, 2026

     Leftists who favor making no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants usually claim that the illegals are all Smiths. “They came here for a better life!” Even if we omit consideration of the immigration laws, this is a deliberate effacement of an important distinction. Some of those Smiths seek “a better life” by preying on others. Indeed, some were sent here by even bigger predators, to serve those bigger ones’ aims.

     As for the Joneses, we must deem them invaders ab initio, regardless of whether they wear uniforms or tote weapons. This is particularly the case for Muslims. Islam forbids the Muslim to acknowledge any allegiance other than Islam. Thus, the Muslim is required to remain conscious at all times that his creed commands him to subjugate all persons everywhere to the dictates of Islam.

     The nations of Europe have been battered nearly to destruction for failing to accept this fact. Islam has penetrated Europe so deeply that its clerics now openly proclaim their intention that Islam and sharia law shall rule throughout the Old World. Europe’s governments, with a handful of exceptions, have postured as either indifferent to those threats or powerless to oppose them.

     That’s a summary of large-scale human mobility at the beginning of the Year of Our Lord 2026. Individuals’ motives for migration are all subsumed by the Smith / Jones dichotomy. Are there a few Smiths scattered among the Joneses, or vice versa? No doubt. Might some Joneses prove tractable in the long run, capable of renouncing their original aims and becoming loyal Americans? The odds are against it, but I hesitate to say it can’t happen.

     I will say only this: Beware. That is, be aware. If there are migrants in your community, do your best to know which ones are Smiths and which are Joneses. Treat carefully with the Smiths, but be even more wary of the Joneses. And under no circumstances let the Joneses build fortresses among you, no matter how they represent themselves or their institutions! Not opposing them from the outset could ultimately cost your life, or the lives of your descendants.

The Deepest Divide

     I’d intended to apologize for a sudden attack of intellectual sloth and declare a day off, but I have something on my mind that demands a piece, if only a brief one.

     You’re a Gentle Reader of Liberty’s Torch. That marks you as intelligent, erudite, on top of current events, and unusually handsome and charming. And that means you’re already aware of the enormous “daycare fraud” being perpetrated by Somalis in Minnesota. It’s a good thing you’re already aware, for the national media have done their best not to mention them.

     Citizen-journalist Nick Shirley has done excellent work at exposing these frauds. Not one of them has any children in its care. All are consuming federal and state funds with a voracity that would impress Ungoliant.

     The scandals that surround the scandal pertain to the Minnesota state government’s tolerance – nay, its protection – of these fraudulent institutions, and the complete failure of any national news organ to report on them. Governor Tim Walz, already a figure of considerable ignominy, has openly said that he will support the Somalians against ICE and the justice system. All in all, it forms a pile of ordure that would sicken Satan.

     If Satan were an American, that is. If he’s a Third Worlder or a Muslim, it’s business as usual, except for the embarrassment of getting caught with your hand in the till.

     If you were raised in the U.S. or in Europe, you were raised to Judeo-Christian moral-ethical standards: broadly speaking, the Noahide Commandments, of which the Ten Commandments of the Book of Exodus are a superset. Those standards are not common to persons reared outside the nations of Christendom. Third Worlders generally live by another rule:

Getting Away With It
Is All That Matters.

     Military science-fiction writer Tom Kratman has called this amoral familism. Of course, the term amoral implies a moral standard that an amoralist would deny. The standard of the First World, as previously mentioned, is the one delineated by the Ten Commandments.

     It doesn’t matter that we of the First World are shocked by the Somalian fraud system. That is: it doesn’t matter to the Somalians. All that matters to them is getting away with it. They feel no guilt. They’re merely embarrassed about being exposed. They have powerful protectors, so there’s a good chance they’ll continue to get away with it. Should that protection fail, such that they’re indicted, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for their crimes, well, “them’s the breaks,” right? Imagine a big Third World shrug.

     Prison, by the way, would not change them. They’d come out as amoral as they went in.

     In this cleavage between the moral standard shared by the U.S. and Europe and the non-standard of the Third World lies the clinching argument against permitting Third Worlders to immigrate to the First World. To the Somalians, the U.S. is a goodie bowl from which to grab all they can get away with. Their attitude is shared by virtually all other Third Worlders. They start stealing as soon as they’re here. They don’t stop of their own accord; they must be stopped. To avert that calamity, they make use of every bleeding-heart slogan and epithet you’ve ever heard, with copious assistance from the American Left.

     (Why the American Left is so willing to defend these migratory vampires is a subject for another tirade. For now, just take it as written.)

     The 1965 Hart-Celler Act made it possible for Third Worlders to apply for entry to the United States, with the possibility of naturalization after five years’ residence. Beyond that, the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Refugee Act allow such persons to petition for asylum here, on the representation that they’re fleeing persecution. These were regarded as humanitarian reforms. However, as we have seen from the Somalians and other Third World arrivals to our shores, the humanitarianism is one-way only. Third Worlders don’t assimilate. They certainly don’t adopt the Judeo-Christian ethics that makes our open, generous, excessively trusting society possible.

     President Trump has said that he will deport them. I hope he’ll keep his word. For longer-range relief, the Hart-Celler Act and all legislation that draws from that foundation must be repealed in favor of an immigration policy that admits only those who can be expected to conform to Judeo-Christian moral-ethical standards, no matter what religion they profess. I imagine Buddhists would be fairly safe.

"We The People," Who?

     [The piece below first appeared at the Eternity Road website in June of 2007 -- FWP]

---

     In mid-2004, there was born a Website which proposed to hold an international plebiscite on the upcoming American elections. The thesis was that since what the United States does "affects" the entire world -- yes, those are "sneer quotes" -- then the world should have as much say in the selection of American officialdom as the American citizens do. Say what you will about the "logic" behind such a proposition, we must grant its audacity at the very least.

     That campaign season also featured a letter-writing campaign by British glitterati, including rabid anti-theist Richard Dawkins and hack novelist David Cornwell (a.k.a. "John LeCarre"), to voters in selected American "swing states." The writers urged their American targets to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry -- say, did you know he served in Vietnam? Imagine that! -- on the grounds that President Bush was "stupid," a "bully," a "theocrat," was "universally hated," was waging "an illegal war," or any possible combination thereof. And with that, your Curmudgeon's sneer-quote key has breathed its last, at least for today.

     The supranationalist assumptions behind these phenomena are easily destroyed. Yes, America has great influence in the world; we Americans, a mere 5% of the population of the world, generate more than 30% of its wealth and wield armed forces that could defeat all the other nations of the world in concert. But that's not because of our government, but because of the governments of all the other nations of the world. Our government, despite its many flaws and violations of its Constitutional contract, doesn't exercise the kind of power over American enterprise that other governments do over the productive efforts of their subjects. America's magnificent military is the consequence of the wealth that flows from our largely free economy and relatively restrained welfare system. Heavily regulated and bureaucratized economies, which must also carry the burden of much larger welfare states, can't afford worthwhile militaries, which is why ours is so frequently called upon to deal with tyrants and terrors.

     (Nota bene: A citizen is one who retains his individual sovereignty despite his allegiance to a particular polity. His distinguishing characteristic is his right to keep and bear arms. A subject is one who has no individual sovereignty, having surrendered all ultimate decision-making power to the State. His lack of a right to keep and bear arms, which renders him defenseless against incursions on any of his other rights, is the most prominent giveaway. The United States has citizens; most of the rest of the nations of the world have subjects. Food for thought.)

     But we can't expect to defeat supranationalism -- broadly, the premise that nation-states are inimical to the general good and should be done away with -- with mere logic. The supranationalist is adroit. He argues from his good intentions. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone had a say in everything that affects him in any way? And since every slightest thing that anyone does, anywhere in the world, affects all of us in some way, however small, doesn't that imply that democracy should be unbounded by these Westphalian fossils we call nation-states?

     Well, if you buy the premise, you buy the conclusion. But the premise is itself unsound. Indeed, it's about as risible as the arguments made for slavery, with which it has a great deal in common. And Eternity Road readers are unlikely to accept supranationalism anyway, so what's the big deal?

     The big deal is this: whenever a government compromises its nation's integrity for the sake of another nation, or the subjects of another nation, it's acting from the supranationalist premise. In so doing, it degrades the interests of its own people, implicitly or explicitly to favor other peoples. It ceases to act as its citizens' delegated agent, and assumes the prerogatives of their owner, who may dispose of their rights and prerogatives as it pleases, without their consent.

     Two particularly egregious cases of this are in motion today.

     In the Middle East, the Palestinian irredentists of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are engaged in a particularly bloody civil war. Their quarrel with one another is purely over power. Neither side deserves the support of a decent man; both are committed to the ultimate destruction of Israel. If Israel's statesmen regarded themselves as the servants of Israel rather than its masters, they would seize this opportunity to perfect the quarantine of the Palestinian zones. They would cease all quasi-diplomatic intercourse with the Palestinians "for the duration," a period of convenient elasticity. They certainly wouldn't look for guidance to the supranational United Nations or European Union, both of which have displayed uncompromising hostility toward Israel for many years. But the Olmert government is behaving in precisely the opposite way, attempting to conciliate and buttress Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah faction in the hope that it will prevail and reach a peace accord with Israel in the aftermath. This is like taking sides in a knife fight between murderers; the only decent course is to root for both sides to lose.

     Here in the West, we have the spectacle of a majority of our Congressmen and Senators, and our president himself, bowing to the demands of our neighbor to the south that we not fortify our mutual border. Legislation from 2006 mandates a border fence, but there's been little funding provided for it and little to no work on it. The disproportionate participation of illegal aliens in felony crimes is widely known, yet there've been scant efforts to impede the movement or employment of illegal aliens already in our land. The infamous immigration reform bill gestating in Congress even offers a cheap amnesty to the estimated 12 million illegals to whom we're already hosts, conciliating them above 290 million born and naturalized citizens to whom our government is supposedly subordinate.

     One can suspect corruption and venality, of course. No doubt they play some part in both cases. But the arguments used to rationalize the objectionable postures are almost explicitly supranationalist. It's the people that matter, not the borders. And anyway, think of the kids.

     Wrong, wrong, wrong.

     Borders matter because people matter. Borders are important because there must be a limit on every man's responsibilities for others, and on every nation's, too. Every political system binds its citizens in a web of mutual responsibility. Not for everything, but for the really big things commonly delegated to government: the defense of the realm, the maintenance of order in the streets, a common, generally comprehended legal system, and above all the protection of individuals' rights to life, liberty, and honestly acquired property. Israel granted the Palestinians autonomy within their zones, or, as Eric Frank Russell once put it, "the right to go to Hell in their own fashion." Now that they've chosen their course, they should be allowed to follow it to its conclusion, out of respect not only for their right to do so, but the right of Israelis not to be involved in it. Likewise, America did not agree to shelter or employ the whole world. If our borders were better secured, not only would our streets be safer, but Mexicans' interest in reforming their own polity would be greatly increased.

     Don't say any of that to a supranationalist, though. He'll accuse you of being hard-hearted, a jingoist, possibly a racist. He'll call you an ingrate for spurning the innumerable contributions of undocumented Americans to our great nation, though if these contributions go beyond cheap lawn care and abundant convenience-store clerks, your Curmudgeon has yet to discover it. He'll stride away filled with moral superiority and reinforced in his conviction that we grubby conservatives have nothing of substance to say, and must be re-educated or destroyed.

     Be not afraid to reject the supranationalist premise. Be very afraid of what might follow in supranationalism's train. Its advocates are mobilized as never before. Their agenda goes well beyond what's currently under discussion. We shall see.

A City In Insurrection

     I dislike being this exercised on a Sunday morning, but here it is:

New: illegal alien Tatiana Martinez is a TikTok influencer (tatianamartinez_02) with 30k followers was arrested today. This woman focused on alerting crazy protesters to disrupt, harass and disrespect ICE and law enforcement officers in California. She is also a nominee for… pic.twitter.com/PFJCvAkkt1

— hernando arce (@hernandoarce) August 16, 2025

     There you have it, Gentle Reader. The City of Los Angeles is towing the cars of ICE agents whenever they stop to make an arrest. That’s not accidental. That’s city policy. It puts Los Angeles, once a great city, into a state of insurrection against the federal government.

     So what now? Will this policy even draw a rebuke? Will the Department of Homeland Security send Mayor Karen Bass a strongly worded letter? And what about that blowhard in Sacramento? You know who I mean: the one who fancies himself a future president! What will he do to demonstrate compliance with federal law on immigration?

     There’s no chance of California “authorities” doing anything to comply with the law. California needs its illegals to retain all those juicy seats in Congress. Besides, they vote Democrat.

     Stay tuned.

Ultra-Quickies: A Heartlifting Statement

     There are folks whose principal pastime is acting offended, because it wins them social and political privileges. Among these, Latino immigrants to the U.S. have recently been prominent. Sarah Hoyt has had enough of their shit and wants them to know it:

     Don’t come here to then accuse people here of “racism” for not treating you as if they owe you something. If you’re a Latin immigrant, FIFO (Fit in or F off.) And if you and yours have been here for generations and wish to remain here, then assume your responsibility for the American project and for your own life. Stop trying to play the part of victim. It’s not cute, it’s not funny, and it destroys not just you but the nation. Also, as someone others — including the State Department — associate with Latin immigrants, I’m sick and tired of it.

     Bravo!

Quickies: What You Need To Know

     Back when Glenn Beck had a program on the Headline News cable channel, he would include in each of his shows a segment on “what you need to know.” Those segments were often exactly as described: important information likely to have been downplayed – if not completely concealed – by the mainstream media. I was a regular viewer back then, and I often made notes of the items thus tagged.

     It isn’t often I feel a need to tell anyone “what you need to know,” but such an occasion is upon us:

     The bill is about 4400 words long, and horrifying from first to last. If you’d like a professional’s explication de texte, here’s Tucker Carlson’s analysis:

     I have read the bill. It’s as bad as Tucker makes it sound; possibly worse, given the huge amount of discretion it awards to unelected officials whose identities are likely to be concealed from us.

     Yes, the video is 13-plus minutes long. Please watch it. Then ask yourself Tucker’s question:

Why have we heard nothing about this from the mainstream news media?

     I’d like an answer, wouldn’t you?

Quickies: A Speculation On Supremacy And Insurrection

     Imagine the following scenario:

     President Trump, aghast at California’s declaration of itself as a sanctuary for illegal aliens, orders massive ICE raids throughout the state. Thousands of ICE agents pour into California and begin to seek out known concentrations of illegals, who are then promptly deported to their countries of origin. These agents gather information from American citizens willing to cooperate, and from others willing to sell information about concentrations of illegals for cash. Within a week thousands of illegals have been arrested and deported.

     The state government is incensed, It orders California law enforcement authorities to obstruct the ICE agents at work on the catch-and-deport effort. At first the obstruction is non-violent, but after a while California LEOs begin to make use of force and threats of force.

     Would that qualify as an insurrection under the Constitution? If so, what do you think the federal response would be – or should be? If not, what more would have to happen to qualify it as one?

Kindness In Diplomacy

     So many people have written to say such nice things about this piece that I thought it might bear up under a brief extension….

---

Kindness Goes International

     Foreign Minister Lane Scheisskopf was plainly upset. As there could only be one reason, Whiteman had to repress a smile. He’d known it was coming; the only uncertainty was how soon it would arrive.

     “Mister Prime Minister,” Scheisskopf ventured, “while your refugee policy has admittedly quelled the problem for us domestically, there have been…other consequences.”

     Whiteman nodded. “I assume those consequences are pertinent to your area of responsibility, Lane?”

     “They are, sir.”

     “Well,” Whiteman said, “other nations were never guaranteed to approve of our domestic arrangements. As long as they confine themselves to verbal criticism, I think we can endure it.”

     “Sir, some of them are speaking openly of retaliatory measures.”

     “Of what sorts?”

     “Tariffs and trade barriers.”

     “Ah!” Whiteman allowed his expression to brighten. “What does our nation import from them, Lane?”

     “Sir?”

     “Come, come! What goods does our country import from those countries? More to the point, how would our people and our economy be affected by the absence of those imports?”

     Scheisskopf was deeply flustered by the inquiry. “Sir, I’m not prepared with that information.”

     “Are you prepared to say which of our domestic industries would be affected by the inability to export to those nations?”

     “No, Mister Prime Minister,” Scheisskopf mumbled. “I’m not.”

     “Hmph.” Whiteman rose from his desk, went to the little bar built into the north wall, and poured himself two fingers of Calvados. “A drink, Lane?”

     “No thank you, sir.”

     “You know,” Whiteman said after a sip, “if you were prepared with that information, it would be a significant datum. It would mean that the consequences of a trade skirmish with those countries would be widely felt, and perhaps deeply enough that our people would feel some pain. As that’s not the case, allow me to say that I’m unconcerned over the matter. Was there anything else?”

     “Yes, sir,” Scheisskopf said after a moment. “The ambassadors of Dumbfuckistan and Upyourassov have urgently requested to meet with you. Today, if possible.”

     Whiteman finally allowed himself to smile. “Of course it’s possible, Lane! I’d be delighted to chat with them. Where are they at the moment?”

     Scheisskopf glanced at his watch. “At this time, sir, I imagine they’d be at their respective embassies.”

     “Well, ring them up! Tell them I’d be happy to see them here, at any time today. But together, Lane. Together only.” Whiteman waved an arm. “My time is limited, but as the refugees could tell you, my hospitality is boundless.”

     Scheisskopf winced, nodded, and departed.

---

     Whiteman didn’t hear from Scheisskopf until late that afternoon. He sensed that Ambassadors Jihadiki and Jerkovich had wanted one-on-one time with him and were resisting the notion of meeting with him together. But at about four his secretary announced that they had presented themselves as he suggested. The two trooped into the Icosahedron Office, with Scheisskopf in the lead.

     Whiteman remained seated as they entered. “Well, gentlemen? What is it?”

     Both ambassadors bridled at the expression of disdain. They were accustomed to the treatment Whiteman’s predecessors had given them as respected representatives of sovereign states. To be treated as mere supplicants grated on both men’s self-esteem. Scheisskopf was equally upset at the blatant disregard of the diplomatic courtesies, but he kept silent.

     It was Jihadiki who spoke first. “Prime Minister Whiteman, we must protest your treatment of our citizens in the strongest possible terms. What you have done amounts to incarcerating them as criminals, treatment that is explicitly forbidden by the bylaws of the World Council on Refugee Resettlement!”

     “Surely, Ambassador,” Whiteman purred, “you’re aware that my nation is not a member of that council? That we reject its assertions of authority and have never agreed to any of its emissions?”

     “We are,” Jihadiki said, “but—”

     “Then you may consider that point to have been dealt with and dismissed with prejudice, Ambassador.” Whiteman paused and looked off theatrically. “Did I hear you say a moment ago that you were here to protest our treatment of your citizens?”

     The Icosahedron Office grew strangely silent. Scheisskopf’s look of anxiety intensified still further.

     Presently Jihadiki said “I meant to say that—”

     “What you did say is what concerns me, Ambassador.” Whiteman chose that moment to rise from his desk and cross his arms over his chest. “Which of your citizens have I mistreated, and when and where?”

     Jihadiki merely glared. Whiteman nodded as if the ambassador had confirmed an important supposition for him.

     “You mentioned refugees in the same sentence with your citizens, Ambassador,” Whiteman said. “From that I infer that the citizens you’re concerned about are in our refugee detention center. Is that or is that not the case?”

     Jihadiki drew a deep breath. “It is, Mister Prime Minister.”

     Whiteman smiled. “Well, in that case,” he said, “I’ll happily order them transferred to your custody—if you’re willing to take personal responsibility for transporting them directly back to your nation. Otherwise, I’m afraid they’ll have to stay in the detention center. They did arrive here illegally, you know.”

     “There is no such thing,” Jerkovich grated, “as an illegal refugee in international law.”

     “And what makes you think,” Whiteman said, “that I have the least concern with ‘international law,’ Ambassador? By conforming to the ‘international law’ of which you speak, the nations of Europe have found themselves overrun by savages that are rapidly destroying their continent. Present trends continuing, twenty-five years from today Europe will be a Third World hellhole indistinguishable from Dumbfuckistan and Upyourassov.” He grinned viciously into their shocked faces. “Why else would the flow of refugees be exclusively from your countries to mine? Did you think I would put a happy gloss on something so obvious, as a gesture of respect to you?”

     It took a moment for Jerkovich to find his voice, but when he did it came out at volume.

     “Your attitude toward a sovereign nation is intolerable!” Jerkovich roared. “When I have informed my president there will be repercussions that will rock your nation to its knees.”

     Whiteman shrugged. “Such as?”

     Jerkovich opened his mouth to continue, but closed it without speaking. He glared daggers at Whiteman, who merely smiled.

     Presently Whiteman said “Unless you’re contemplating military action against us, I’m unconcerned with any ‘repercussions’ you have in mind. And if military action is on your agenda, allow me to state quite explicitly that a fifth of our navy could beat the snot out of the whole of yours and be home in time for lunch.” He turned to Jihadiki “I hope your nation isn’t about to make any such threats. I’d be unable to restrain my laughter.”

     There was a thump from the far side of the room as Scheisskopf fainted and collapsed.

     “Never have the representatives of civilized nations been treated so rudely!” Jerkovich screamed. “You will regret this!”

     Whiteman shrugged again. “I don’t think so. But I will refrain from comment on your implication that your two nations are ‘civilized.’ Now, gentlemen, was there anything else? Anything of substance? I do have a country to govern, you know.”

     After a few seconds’ silence he pressed the button that would summon his security detail to escort them out.

---

     That was fun. And yes, I think there’ll be a third installment. Stay tuned!

Think I’ll Do A Little More Angry

     Enjoy the following political wet dream:

To Kill With Kindness

     John Whiteman, Prime Minister of a First World nation that shall go unidentified for obvious reasons, recently announced a change to his country’s “refugee” policies. He can’t change the law, but he can change how it’s observed in practice – and he has. Immediately afterward, he addressed a group of “refugees” that made it to his nation’s shores:

     “Refugees, eh? Yet more than ninety percent of you are young men, all of you look healthy, and it looks like most of you have smart phones. What are you running from, the fathers of the girls you knocked up?

     “According to our laws, we have to house you ‘refugees’ here…but only until we can return you to your home countries in safety. So here’s the deal: you’ll be living in tents, in this compound, which you won’t be permitted to leave. There'll be no WiFi, no electricity, and no entertainment of any kind. Yes, there’ll be food and water, but we won’t care about your opinion of the food, and water will be all you get to drink. Clothes? What’s wrong with the clothes you’re wearing?

     “The compound is surrounded by crew-served machine gun emplacements that are continuously manned. Anyone who tries to scale the fence will be shot down, no questions asked. His neighbors can dispose of his body; we certainly won’t want it.

     “For extra security, you’ll all be wearing ankle monitors. Very special ankle monitors: if you cut through the band that holds them on, they explode. Guaranteed amputation of your lower leg. If one of you is detected outside the compound, he’ll be tracked down and executed wherever he’s found, again no questions asked. Yes, kids too. Some of you ‘teenagers’ have mighty impressive beards.

     “We aren’t interested in hearing any demands from you. In fact, the very first demand any of you makes will get all of you loaded onto a raft and dragged a mile out to sea. Think you could make it back?

     “Whoever survives this regime will be returned to his homeland when we think it’s safe. You won’t get a vote. After all, we didn’t get one when you decided to leave, and fair’s fair.

     “So make yourselves at home! Those of you whose phones are working should call your buddies back in Dumbfuckistan and tell them about the conditions here. Especially you should tell them about the size of this compound – the fixed size of this compound. No matter how many ‘refugees’ arrive here, they’ll all be confined to the space you occupy now. No enlargement will be considered.

     “Have a nice day!”

     Prime Minister Whiteman considered his task accomplished and returned to his desk in the Icosahedron Office. He’d been there barely a minute before his secretary began to bombard him with messages. All of them were from members of Parliament. They were unanimously upset. Angry minorities among their constituents were bombarding them with complaints that ranged from decorous protests to death threats.

     Whiteman had a uniform response to those calls: “Ignore the protests. I have defined the policy, and I intend to enforce it. See to it that the law is enforced in your constituency, and leave mine to me.”

     Over the next three days the cascade of complaining parliamentarians dwindled to a trickle and then ceased altogether. There were scattered reports of angry street protests, which Whiteman ignored. A couple featured low-level violence. The prime minister directed the relevant police forces to enforce the law without fear or favor, and they did so. After a week there were no more protests.

     Whiteman reviewed the reports from the “refugee” compound each morning. For a week there were no hints of difficulty; the “refugees” appeared to have accepted their lot. The absence of any discord made him increasingly suspicious. He ordered a doubling of the guard force.

     Then came the escape attempt.

---

     “How many dead?” Whiteman said. He did not look up from his paperwork.

     “Twelve.” Interior Minister Frank Tenderfoot was desperate to get the chief executive to alter the “refugee” detention policy. He hoped the announcement that bloodshed had finally occurred would do it.

     His hopes were dashed.

     “Good,” Whiteman said. “That should be enough to get the rest to draw the moral. Was there anything else?”

     “Mister Prime Minister,” Tenderfoot faltered, “aren’t you the least bit concerned about the loss of innocent human life?”

     That brought Whiteman’s eyes up. Tenderfoot was shocked to see him smile.

     “Not at all, Frank,” the prime minister said. “First, by definition the escapees were not innocents. They broke parole. They chose to defy the conditions I placed on their refuge. Second, I put the existing policy in place well before they arrived here, so they had no excuse for not knowing what the consequences would be. They chose to doubt my will. That was on them.”

     Tenderfoot was taken aback. He’d known Whiteman to be callous about human rights matters, but he’d never imagined that it would lead to mass bloodshed. He groped for words.

     “Was there anything else, Frank?” Whiteman said. “I am rather pressed, you know.”

     “Mister Prime Minister…” Tenderfoot breathed once deeply. “You should be aware that—”

     “That the Justice Crusaders will be staging a protest right in front of the compound fence later today?” Whiteman shrugged. “I know, Frank. I’ve known since last night. My agents inside that organization reported it to me. As long as they don’t obstruct the gunners’ view of the fences, I’ll have no problem with it. If they do, on the other hand…” Whiteman’s smile became shark-like. “Let’s just say that their troubles will be worse than they can imagine. As will yours.”

     Tenderfoot staggered where he stood.

     “Yes, Frank, I know about your involvement. I’ve known for a while. Good intelligence is vital to a chief executive, especially in this snake pit of a government, so I made it a high priority from day one in this chair. I probably have the best network any PM has ever had. And I will nail you to a cross if your comrades should pose my patrols the least little difficulty. So you should make sure to tell your Justice Crusaders to keep out of the way of the compound guard force. I can trust you to see to that, can’t I?”

     Tenderfoot stuttered and choked. Presently he shambled out of the Icosahedron Office.

---

     The next morning’s news coverage was all about the medical condition of Interior Minister Frank Tenderfoot. Apparently he’d been set upon by an angry mob during what the papers called a “gathering of his constituents.” Why that gathering had occurred far outside his parliamentary constituency went unaddressed. Those who attacked him had beaten him savagely, some with clubs. The hospital to which he’d been taken reported him to be in critical condition.

     Whiteman noted the reports and had his secretary send a bouquet to Tenderfoot’s hospital room.

     It was barely nine o’clock when his secretary told him that a large majority of Parliament had demanded that he appear before them at once. He shrugged, buttoned his jacked, and went to the Chamber of Deputies to confront them. When the speaker admitted him, he strode to the lectern, panned a smile around the members, and said, “Well? What is it?”

     The gathering drew a collective breath so sharp that Whiteman could feel a draft flow from him toward them. After a moment, a Member rose pointed an accusing finger at him.

     “Mister Prime Minister,” the Member shouted, “your refugee detention policy has already caused twelve deaths and could well be responsible for the assault on Interior Minister Tenderfoot!”

     Whiteman nodded. “So? What of it?”

     There was a moment of shocked silence.

     “Aren’t you the least bit concerned about these events?” the Member continued.

     “I did not send Minister Tenderfoot into the den of villains where he was attacked,” Whiteman said. “Therefore I have no responsibility for the consequences. As for the fatalities at the refugee compound,” he said, “that was in accordance with policy. My policy. And as long as I have the authority over such matters that the Refugee Relief bill gives me – you did vote for that bill, didn’t you, Arthur? – that policy will not change.”

     The Member was visibly stunned. He’d plainly expected the spilling of blood to force Whiteman to modify his detention policy. He had not dreamed that the prime minister would choose to stand fast.

     “While I’m here,” Whiteman said, “allow me to acquaint you with a few facts. First, the refugees are all fed, watered, and protected from the elements. There have been no reports of violence within the compound. No one has attempted to tamper with the fences or the ankle monitors. Second, statistics on the refugees’ home countries are now generally available, and they point to a single, inarguable fact: They’re better off in the compound, statistically, than they were where they came from. They’re eating twice as many calories per man per day as their compatriots. They’re not subject to political persecution. Not one of them has asked to be repatriated. Yes, twelve did attempt to escape. They paid a price that had been made known to them in advance. It’s my hope that no others will pay it, but that’s up to them. So tell me, Members all: Are you ready to deport them en masse? Because that’s their sole alternative to detention in that compound.”

     Whiteman started to turn and depart the dais, checked himself and turned back to the gathering. “You should also know, Members all, that since I had the compound fenced and guarded as it currently is, not one additional refugee craft has approached our shores. Word has gotten around, it seems. Nearly all of the refugees came equipped with phones, and they sent word to their homeland about the reception they’d received. Inasmuch as controlling he refugee influx, with its accompaniment of crime, welfarism, and other social pathologies, was one of the tasks you set me, I deem the goal achieved.”

     “You’ll be unseated at the next election!” came a shout from the gathering.

     Whiteman smiled. “Will I?” he said. “Perhaps. But perhaps not. Perhaps you gentlemen should consult your constituents before you decide to range yourselves against me. And with that I shall say, as I said to the refugees when I addressed them a week ago yesterday: Have a nice day.”

     And he left the dais to return to his office.

---

     Likely? Not very. But plausible. The pendulum of public opinion, in First World countries worldwide, is swinging toward that pole. It would be unwise to imagine that Whiteman’s policy simply can’t happen, that popular sentiment would forbid it.

     What if it were it to become policy here in America?

Quickies: The B[W]all Is Now In Our Court

     If Congress won’t fund the border wall, President Trump’s signature issue and one of his highest priorities, then we must:

     Like a majority of those American citizens who voted to elect President Donald J Trump, we voted for him to Make America Great Again. President Trump’s main campaign promise was to BUILD THE WALL. And as he’s followed through on just about every promise so far, this wall project needs to be completed still....

     “If the 63 million people who voted for Trump each pledge $80, we can build the wall.” That equates to roughly 5Billion Dollars, even if we get half, that's half the wall. We can do this.

     Democrats are going to stall this project by every means possible and play political games to ensure President Trump doesn’t get his victor. They'd rather see President Trump fail, than see America succeed. However, if we can fund a large portion of this wall, it will jumpstart things and will be less money Trump has to secure from our politicians.

     This won’t be easy, but it’s our duty as citizens. This needs to be shared every single day by each of you on social media. We can do it, and we can help President Trump make America safe again!

     Needless to say, there are plenty of detractors – but they can’t stop this effort merely by disparaging it. Nothing can, as long as GoFundMe doesn’t arbitrarily kill it off. This is Americans rising in defense of America – and what could express our national character better than that?

     If you can participate without harming your finances or breaking a promise to your family, please consider it.

Turn And Face The Strange Changes

     I was perusing Gab.Ai a few minutes ago when I chanced upon a thread in which one participant, in defending the thesis that “we are a nation of individuals,” seemed to reject the very possibility that there are statistical – or if you prefer, aggregate – differences of several kinds among identifiable demographics. The suggestion that such differences exist, that they are systematic, and that they can be contextually significant horrified her. She simply didn’t want to consider the possibility, and cast aspersions on anyone who argued that they are factors that must be taken into account.

     The enveloping subject was immigration to these United States.

     Over the past five decades, immigration to the U.S. has wrought significant changes to our society. Those changes are most pronounced where racially, religiously, or ethnically grouped immigrants cluster. The non-Muslim residents of Hamtramck, Michigan could tell you about some of them. The Caucasian residents of Minneapolis and Saint Paul could tell you about others. And the native-born citizens of California and the Southwestern states could tell you about still others.

     It’s not somehow unfair to note the patterns in identifiable demographics. If the pattern is reproducible – i.e., if any observer, watching the behavior of the groups under study, would perceive it as well as any other – it constitutes important information. But so sensitized has our society become to accusations or intimations of prejudice that merely speaking of a pattern one sees has become hazardous to his social and commercial health...possibly to his corporal health as well.

---

     Does anyone remember this survey of traffic-law-observance and breaking on New Jersey’s roads?

     A recent, tax-funded study, conducted by the Public Service Research Institute, dared to delve into the truth or falsity of the allegations that New Jersey State Troopers have been enforcing an unlegislated statute against Driving While Black. According to what I've read, the study was conducted with meticulous alertness for factors that might bias its results. It made use of impersonal, double-blind techniques at every stage of its processing. It was apparently a model of its kind, a showcase for the best statistical practices of the social sciences.

     Unfortunately, the results of the study were:

• The troopers were not engaging in racial profiling when they stopped black drivers, because:
• Black drivers violate the motor vehicle laws disproportionately to their numbers. The disproportion is approximately 50%. That is, whereas blacks made up 16 percent of motorists on the New Jersey Turnpike, they accounted for 23 percent of the traffic stops and for 25 percent of the speeders. This verdict was rendered not by the troopers themselves, but by automated radar units and camera records.

     Because the study both exonerates the troopers and indicts the most sensitive American racial group, the US Department of Justice has turned its face against it. The state of New Jersey refuses to release the study to the public. That didn't keep it from being reported by the New York Times -- and denounced by the NAACP.

     Perhaps the statistics would have been different on another road, or in another county or state. But the ones that New Jersey State Troopers recorded on the Turnpike proved to be reproducible. The instruments that recorded them could not have been biased, being without opinions about matters racial.

     Yes, Virginia, there are differences among the races. One of them is in our relative propensity for lawbreaking.

---

     Now, a statistical difference such as the one explored above tells us nothing about any particular individual. Human characteristics, including the propensity for lawbreaking, tend to follow a Gaussian (a.k.a. “normal”) distribution. There will be numbers of persons in any given demographic who are distant from its axes of symmetry – i.e., from its averages. Have an illustration:

     As is illustrated here, about 68.2% of all the people in a Gaussian distribution will be within one standard deviation of the average. About 95.4% of them will be within two standard deviations. And about 99.7% will be within three standard deviations. So: If we were considering a demographic that contains one million persons, then:

• 682,000 of them would be within one SD of the axis: 341,000 above, 341,000 below.
• 954,000 of them would be within two SD of the axis: 477,000 above, 477,000 below.
• 997,000 of them would be within three SD of the axis: 498,500 above, 498,500 below.

     ...which means that out of that million, about 3000 persons would be more than three SD from the axis. Depending on the characteristic under discussion and the size of a standard deviation, that could prove significant.

     Neither the averages nor the standard deviations are unimportant; far from it. When it comes to immigration policy, both of them matter quite a lot. We’ve been learning that as immigrant demographics have clustered tightly in selected regions.

---

     For the sake of what follows, and to shield myself from premature accusations of bigotry, in the next example I shall use Scott Adams’s favorite fictional ethnic group: the Elbonians. And to avoid invidious comparisons of other kinds, the characteristic I shall address is the propensity to draw to an inside straight.

     First, let’s have a little clarification for those unfamiliar with the game of draw poker. Each player is dealt five cards. After all players have had a moment to assess their hands, the dealer goes clockwise around the table asking for draws. Each player seeks to produce the highest ranking hand possible. The various combinations of cards, in ascending order of rank, are:

1. Nothing matches.
2. One pair.
3. Two pairs.
4. Three of a kind.
5. A straight: five cards in numerical sequence.
6. A flush: five cards of the same suit.
7. A full house: Three of a kind plus a pair.
8. Four of a kind.
9. A straight flush: i.e., a straight that is also a flush.
10. A royal flush: Ace, King, Queen, Jack, and Ten of the same suit.

     Now, let’s imagine that we’ve been dealt:

1. Four of spades;
2. Five of hearts;
3. Seven of clubs;
4. Eight of diamonds;
5. Ace of spades.

     Clearly, nothing matches in the above hand. As no player is permitted to discard and draw more than four cards, we’ve got poor prospects in this deal. If it’s a money game, the best move would be to fold: i.e., to declare oneself out of the betting, forfeiting the ante (i.e., the bet required to buy into the deal). But an excessively optimistic player might say to himself, “If I discard the Ace, I might draw a six, which would complete a straight.” This is what’s meant by drawing to an inside straight. He would stay in the betting hoping for that very low probability to come true...and probably lose more money than he would have by folding.

     Drawing to an inside straight is something experienced poker players don’t do. They’re either aware of the unfavorable probabilities involved, or they’ve lost enough money doing it in years past to have learned better.

     But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It’s a gaggle of Elbonians, an ethnicity whose excessive optimism about draw poker is known worldwide! Invite ‘em into the game! Why not? It’s only neighborly. Heh, heh, heh!

     If the Elbonian propensity for drawing to an inside straight is substantially greater than that of the typical American, the Americans in the game are likely to profit from Elbonian participation. Conversely, Elbonians would be rather foolish to allow a large influx of American poker players to their games.

     Can you see how that logic would apply to immigration policy?

---

     In crafting immigration policy, it’s important to be aware of the effects of past policies. If past policy has admitted a lot of Elbonians, with the result that nearly all of them are on the welfare rolls due to having lost their life savings at poker, the new policy should take account of it. Similarly, if past policy has admitted a lot of ethnicity X, religion Y, or race Z, and that group has caused a great deal of social discord – possibly even violence – then the new policy should take account of that. And as it happens, such patterns in racial, religious, and ethnic immigration are perceptible, regardless of the agonized cries of the “we’re all the same” bien-pensants.

• The immigration of Muslims, who refuse to assimilate and repeatedly demand special provisions and exceptions for their “religion,” is causing harm to non-Muslims.
• The immigration of sub-Saharan blacks, who are notoriously more prone to lawbreaking than other races, is causing harm to Caucasians and Mongolians.
• And the exclaves formed in the Southwestern states by immigrants – legal or otherwise – from Latin America are gradually seceding, de facto, from the language, customs, and laws of these United States.

     Perhaps it could be made clearer, but for the life of me I can’t see how.

Quickies: About The U.S.-Born Children Of Illegal Aliens

     Most of the time my memory functions like a junk drawer, or perhaps a disorderly basement used for the indiscriminate storage of uncategorized items. When I reach into it, I can’t be sure what I’ll get. However, it also has an active mode, in which it tosses up interesting bits that bear some relevance to whatever I’ve recently been thinking about. It just presented me with one such item.

     The item is a curious legal term: estoppel:

     Estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a person from adopting a position, action, or attitude, asserting a fact or a right, or prevents one from denying a fact inconsistent with an earlier position if it would result in an injury to someone else.

     Now, that’s written in legalese, which makes it a challenge for most of us English-speakers to decode. For disentanglement, hearken to the late Louis Nizer, in his legal autobiography My Life In Court, about his participation in the curious case of John Jacob Astor, the man with two legally recognized wives:

     Astor [asserted] that the Mexican divorce decree that he had obtained against Gertrude [his first wife] was void, and therefore that he was still married to her and that Dolly [his second wife] was not even his wife. He imposed a counterclaim in which he took the offensive. He asked that the court annul his marriage to Dolly because of a prior subsisting marriage. Finally, for good measure, even if he lost his other contentions, he asked for an absolute divorce from Dolly on the grounds of extreme cruelty. So the issue was joined.

     We contended that Astor could not take advantage of the invalidity of the Mexican divorce because he had procured it himself and had asked Dolly to marry him on the strength of it. We invoked the ancient equitable doctrine of estoppel. One may not take advantage of his own wrong deed. He is estopped from so doing. [Emphasis added by FWP]

     Estoppel has many applications, as the citation from U.S. Legal goes on to detail. However, the moral rationale is uniform: The misbehaver must not be allowed to profit from his misbehavior.

     This might not bear upon the citizenship or lack thereof of the baby – indisputably as innocent as any party to the matter could possibly be – but it would defeat any contention by the illegal-alien parents that they’re entitled to permanent residence in the United States by virtue of having borne a child on our soil. One is forbidden to profit from one’s lawbreaking.

     Finally, to any readers Liberty’s Torch has in the United Kingdom: Happy Guy Fawkes Day! It’s always struck this revolutionary firebrand funny that our English cousins commemorate a coup attempt that failed, but hey, other places, other mores.

Interpretations

     President Trump’s recent suggestion that he might undo the birthright citizenship of “anchor babies” – babies born to mothers illegally in the United States – has evoked a flurry of opposed interpretations of the first paragraph of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution:

     All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [Emphasis added by FWP]

     The emphasized phrase is the nub of the matter. Is a child brought illegally into this country in his mother’s womb subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the answer was no. Left-leaning outlets claim that the Supreme Court changed this interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but that’s a tendentious reading of the decision. Ark’s parents were legal residents of the United States when Ark was born. There is no indication anywhere in the majority opinion that it was intended to apply to the children of illegal aliens.

     Conservative commentators have invoked the context in which the Fourteenth Amendment was passed: specifically, that it was aimed at establishing the citizenship of children born to the recently emancipated slaves. This was an egregious matter indeed, for after the 1808 legal changes that forbade the further importation of slaves, slave owners asserted that a child born to a slave was, quite as much as the mother, the slave owner’s rightful property. The federal government did not address the matter, and of course the slave states would not contradict the assertions of the slave owners.

     I’ve searched my reference books for further Supreme Court decisions relevant to the question. I can’t find any.

---

     There is considerable conflict among the nations about this matter of jurisdiction. The two principal conceptions about it clash dramatically.

     The first of these is the Law of the Soil or jus soli:

     In some countries, jus soli system or birthright citizenship is followed. According to this principle, citizenship of a person is determined by the place where a person was born. Jus soli is the most common means to acquire citizenship of a nation.

     The second conception is the Law of the Blood or jus sanguinis:

     This term when used in the context of citizenship refers to acquisition of citizenship, by the citizenship of the parents. It lays down the principle that the nationality or citizenship of a person is determined by the citizenship of the parents who is a national or citizen of a state.

     In its determinations of citizenship, American law uses both conceptions:

     Pursuant to 8 USCS § 1401, the following persons can acquire citizenship by jus soli:

1. A person born in the U.S., and subject to its jurisdiction.
2. A person born in the U.S. as a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
3. A person of unknown parentage found in the U.S. while under the age of five year. The person can remain a U.S. citizen if it is not shown before s/he attains twenty five years that the person was not born in the U.S.
4. A person born in an outlying possession of the U.S. (i.e., including Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, Panama, the Virgin Islands and Guam.) of parents, one of whom is a citizen of the U.S. who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person.

     The above supposedly applies jus soli criteria. However, note that the children of federal government employees stationed in other nations, no matter how long it might have been since either parent was last in the United States, are granted birthright citizenship through the application of jus sanguinis. (It would be far more difficult to hire people into the Foreign Service were that not the case.)

     American law is moderately (but not completely) averse to the concept of dual citizenship. If American citizen parents were to birth a child in another country while there under the terms of the fourth provision of 8 USCS § 1401 enumerated above, American courts would recognize the child’s American citizenship, but (with certain exceptions) would not recognize his citizenship in that other country. This provision is seldom of importance to ordinary Americans. It tends to arise only in matters of extradition and the voluntary renunciation of American citizenship, both of which are fairly rare.

     Senator Ted Cruz was briefly troubled by dual-citizenship questions during his 2016 presidential campaign. Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta to Eleanor Wilson, an American citizen who satisfied the fourth provision of 18 USC § 1401; thus, he had birthright American citizenship. However, he also had jus soli Canadian citizenship, owing to his birth in that country. That evoked challenges to his Constitutional qualifications for the office of president, which were ultimately resolved in his favor. (Whether Cruz was qualified under jus soli to become prime minister of Canada has never been addressed.)

---

     It’s quite a mess, isn’t it? In all probability it won’t be settled any time soon. Should a case be presented to the Supreme Court, the Court might well decline to hear it. If the Court were to hear it, there would be arguments on both sides, owing to the clashing applications of jus soli and jus sanguinis in federal law. Moreover, as birthright citizenship has been conferred on the children of illegal aliens for several decades, a conservative’s approach to the issue would be caught between the strict wording of the Fourteenth Amendment and a desire to preserve stability by ratifying existing practices.

     Americans’ great need is to know what the law really is:

    “Miss Weatherly,” he said with a note of regret, “I’m a lawyer. I was raised by a lawyer. He taught me to think of the law as our most precious possession. One of the questions he repeatedly insisted that I ponder was ‘What is the law?’ Not ‘What would I like the law to be,’ but ‘What is it really, and how do I know that’s what it is?’
    “My profession, sadly, has made a practice of twisting the law to its own ends. There aren’t many lawyers left who really care what the law is, as long as they can get the results they want, when they want them. So they play the angles, and collaborate with judges who think they’re black-robed gods, and generally do whatever they can get away with to get what they want, without a moment’s regard for what it does to the knowability of the law.
    “I care. I want to know what the law is, what it permits, requires, and forbids. I want my clients to know. And the only way to reach that result is to insist that the words of the law have exact meanings, not arbitrary, impermanent interpretations that can be changed by some supercilious cretin who thinks he can prescribe and proscribe for the rest of us.
    “The Constitution is the supreme law, the foundation for all other law. If it doesn’t mean exactly what its text says—the public meanings of the words as ordinary people understand them—then no one can possibly know what it means. But if no one can know what the Constitution means, then no one can know whether any other law conforms to it. At that point, all that matters is the will of whoever’s in power. And that’s an exact definition of tyranny.”

     Before we leave this subject, have a highly relevant observation from Robert Curry:

     The Democrats are done with paying lip service to American ideals they do not believe in just so they can get elected. They have had it with the American people, and they have decided to replace us with people more to their liking, people who will never consider blocking their progressive agenda.

     How can the Democrats be so certain that the floodtide of illegals they’ve chosen for this task can be counted upon to empower them? Could it be because those people are not exactly dedicated to the American idea, either?

     These new people may not be able to mouth the progressive talking points against the Electoral College or argue for “the living Constitution” but, for the progressives, their hearts are in the right place and their votes will obediently follow their benefactors. That’s what counts.

     The stakes are clearly very high. High stakes means that the big guns – legal and opinion-editorial – will be firing. Nor would they cease to fire even after a definitive, 9-0 Supreme Court decision. Two utterly opposed agendas are involved, and the backers of both will go all in.

     Stay tuned.