Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Although there is no Supreme Court decision on the issue of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens, it is referred to in the dicta in a few cases. The most important is Plyler v. Doe, a 1982 five-to-four decision, in which the Court reached the remarkable conclusion that Texas is constitutionally required to grant free public education to the children of illegal aliens. The opinion of the Court was by Justice William J. Brennan Jr., perhaps the most liberal-activist Justice in the history of the Court and the source of most of the Court’s remarkable innovations in the last half of the twentieth century. The decision, like the grant of birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, makes a mockery of our immigration laws, but Justice Brennan never let law, fact, or logic stand in the way of a decision he wanted to reach. He agreed with President Barack Obama that the function of the court was to decide challenging cases on the basis of “empathy.”

(Lino A. Graglia, "Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public Policy," Texas Review of Law & Politics 14 [fall 2009]: 1-14, at 11 [footnotes omitted])

Everything will soon come your way.

Here.

Here.

To the Editor:

While I find some of the dialogue, particularly references to the Holocaust, vile, inappropriate and counterproductive, I do feel that comparing this Iran deal to the 1938 Munich Agreement signed by Neville Chamberlain, Adolf Hitler and other leaders to be completely appropriate.

This Iranian regime, by its own words and actions, is as dangerous and as antithetical to American interests as Nazi Germany. To support the signing of this suicidal agreement is to be willfully blind.

The ramifications for Israel, the Middle East and the United States are so dire that I do not believe it is inappropriate to question the intentions and priorities of those who negotiated it and support it.

The priorities of people like Representative Jerrold Nadler may be laudable and valid; however, they are not protecting the future of Israel or the world’s Jews.

It is not treason to put other priorities ahead of the survival of the Jewish nation. However, it is disingenuous to call yourself “pro-Israel” and then support the continuation of Iranian centrifuges, the limitations on Iranian nuclear inspections and the unleashing of billions of dollars of revenue to a nation that supports terrorist organizations whose stated goal is to destroy Israel.

As long as Mr. Nadler wants to wear the mantle of being pro-Israel, he deserves the criticism he receives.

J. D. REICH

Lakeland, Fla.

Here.

Here.

The usual arguments against the reality of race are full of fallacies. These logical defects may betoken a lack of clarity about what is in dispute. Consider the following seven hypotheses.

• The word race has irrelevant connotations of superiority and inferiority.

• For many scientific purposes, the concept of race is poorly defined.

• Racial distinctions do not cut very deep in explaining human variability.

• Racial distinctions are limited to unimportant physical characteristics.

• Racial distinctions have no use except to foster racism.

• Racial distinctions are unreal; races are as mythical as fairy godmothers.

• The concept of race is without meaning; it is gibberish mixed with falsehood.

The five authors whose work I have considered here all blur the distinctions among these statements. Each of them argues that because one of the first three statements is true, so must be one or more of the last four. However, although the first three can be defended, the fourth is disputable and the last three are plainly false.

Yes, the workaday concept of race is too crude either to have much value for the science of molecular biology or to serve as the basis of preferential government policies, which are unjust in any case, but it does not follow and it is not true that the concept of race is either meaningless or devoid of objective basis. Tempting though the stratagem may appear, to deny the reality of races will not solve the social problem of race. I do not know how to solve that problem. I do not even know whether it can be solved, but I am sure that making race the basis of official policy will cause more trouble. Because preferential government policies affect everybody but are premised on attitudes and beliefs that are not shared by everybody, they should be abandoned; but because the concept of race is rooted in objective reality, it is probably here to stay.

(Max Hocutt, "Is the Concept of Race Illegitimate?," The Independent Review 7 [summer 2002]: 115-28, at 127)

To the Editor:

As a public official, the county clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples does not have the option to follow only those laws to which she doesn’t personally object (“Kentucky Clerk Defies Justices on Marriages,” front page, Sept. 2).

If her conscience does not permit her to fulfill her oath of office and defend all the laws of her state and the nation, the honorable thing to do is resign in protest.

BARRY EDELSON

Huntington, N.Y.

To the Editor:

There are Christians in many county clerk offices who do issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples not only because it’s their job, but also as an expression of their faith. I hope that news media shaping public opinion will also run features about these committed Christians and explain the inclusive theologies of their churches.

(Rev.) K. JEANNE PERSON

Brooklyn

The writer is an Episcopal priest.

To the Editor:

“Under whose authority?” asked the applicant denied a wedding license. “Under God’s authority,” responded the clerk. Elected public servants answer to no higher authority than the public who elected them. When you arrive at work in government, you leave your religion outside the door.

CHARLES G. STURCKEN

New York