Birthright Citizenship Ended by Executive Order


Nope, America is a public forum, not a house. It’s not privately owned.

If an American business owner invites a foreign worker to his place of business to do work, he’s committed no trespass against anyone.

Because it doesn’t belong to you. Nor is the property or people within. People are independent actors, and have a natural right to Freedom of Association & Contract.

If you block people simply for not being Americans, then you are openly saying that these rights are “bestowed” by Government upon its subjects much as Kings did before it.

You can’t escape that. Either the rights are natural (creations of nature/God), and thus everyone has them, or only Americans have them, and thus they’re creations of Government (which can take back those rights as it pleases).

Decide which it is Dave. Are rights natural or not?


Your post is exceptionally ignorant, AS. Government DOES “bestow” citizenship and ONLY government has the authority to do this. The Constitution delineates, in large measure, what the rights of citizenship are as well. Those rights in no way belong to NON-citizens.

If an employer wants to sponsor a non-citizen into the country as an employee, there are legal methods by which this can be done. Any employer who knowingly hires an illegal alien should be fined out of business…period.


Unless, of course, they contribute large quantities of money to the correct political factions…

EDIT: Do I need to add sarcasm tags to that?


More people in finite area = lower cost of living.
That’s always been my observation in real estate. I’m sure RET will back you up here.

Damn near to 30 years old and you still don’t understand how Capitalism works. I cut costs in order to maintain prices and improve margins. The ONLY time you cut prices is because of flagging sales. You NEVER reduce prices because you cut costs.

Lol, no

At the time this country was founded(which is the last day English Common Law mattered), Britain was the 2nd largest slave trading nation on the planet only behind Portugal. They were responsible for 1/3 of all slaves transported out of Africa.

Not only does English Common Law not recognize that “Everyone has a right to come here from anywhere” they lack historical common law that says “Everyone has a right to NOT come here” as they forcibly enslaved millions of people.

Not in a welfare state it isn’t. The immigrant labor doesn’t provide additional capacity for say an additional .2 jobs. Instead, they displace a native who goes on unemployment/early SS/food stamps, etc. Or are forced to go into part-time work and utilize some degree of government aid to get by. Because the government is patching the hole, it has a nearly net neutral impact on total employment. Which is why the labor participation rate for people under age 50 continues to fall.


I never argued against improving the immigration process; I’d love to see it happen, although I doubt my vision for it would look much like yours.

But, no, our system did NOT create this mess; people insisting on coming to our country by hook or by crook did, in concert with leftists who want their or their families’ votes.

And I mentioned that they had TWO choices, one of which you selectively failed to acknowledge as a choice.

Magna-Yeah-That Magna-Yeah-That Magna-Yeah-That Magna-Yeah-That Magna-Yeah-That


Magna-HaHa and another Magna-Yeah-That


Where’s Slim? I need to practice my floccinaucinihilipilification…


Never gonna happen. Too many vested interests getting more vested every day from exploiting the illegal labor market.


That’s if housing doesn’t increase to match. Which is the entire debate in Seattle right now, and their attempts to not let people build multiple occupant housing.

The fact is, we are less than half developed than other developed nations in terms of land area, and property prices stay pretty low, when you don’t make high restrictions on land use.

Hence why Houston escaped much of the carnage of the 2008 crisis. Their prices didn’t balloon.

Yet you’re embedded in a market with others who will compete with you on those prices, and who are getting those same margins.

Thus, long term, the prices stagnate or fall.

We aren’t talking about a single business Cwolf, we’re talking about aggregated behavior across multiple businesses who are in competition with one another.

Uh, yes.

Again, we weren’t throwing on arbitrary restrictions on Spanish Floridians or the French, and London is a multicultural haven today. complete with Pakistani and Chinese communities that are over 200 years old, because of its history of encouraging mass trade, and being a center for it.

Our first measure as a new nation was adopting it. The Constitution was itself explicitly built out of it.

Yet other nations have more generous welfare packages than we do, and higher immigration rates, and it’s still a boon to them. Singapore, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, I could go on.

More workforce + more skills = more economy, as you tear down bottlenecks that keep it from growing.

I’ve laid out the reasons for falling labor participation previously. There’s a problem asserting immigration as a cause, when we can spot this happening more broadly.

Japan for instance has these same trends, and they’re worse than here.

They also have everything else you talk about Cwolf; wages that stagnated, less work-life balance, cultural disintegration, etc. Yet, they’re as “pure” as you aim for, with an immigration rate that’s among the lowest in the developed world.

Seems like this is a 1st world problem, that gets worse with aging and having more disabled people. Who apparently, by their own reporting, don’t want to work.


Yes it did.

We changed our laws in 1962, and we’ve been on a downward slide ever since. It’s clear cause & effect.
Just like how adding restrictive gun laws, creates illegal gun ownership.

INS director Joseph Swing basically fixed illegal immigration in the 50s, and we didn’t stay true to how he did it. We didn’t internalize the lesson.


No it didn’t. No matter what laws in the universe you cite, no one held a gun to their heads and forced them to come to America.


Houston is the largest city in the U.S. without “zoning” regulations. They rely solely on subdivision restrictions to keep housing rational and affordable.


Nonsense. Nowhere in the Constitution is the term “Common Law” or “British Common Law” mentioned. NOWHERE.


No one forces people to become illegal gun owners, yet we commonly say the law is responsible when that happens after a law change.

You can’t observe the need for efficacy in one, and forget the other.


:roll_eyes: Okay Dave, you are free to be in error:

This can be quite literally the first thing you’ll learn about the Constitution, in any Constitutional law class. Common law is where the Constitution came from, where its terminology finds its definitions.


Are you REALLY serious? We CODIFIED our Constitution in order to NOT be reliant on unspecified “common law” practices. There IS no reference to “common law” anywhere in the Constitution. If you can find it, I’ve got my copy of the Constitution right here by my left hand and I’d be happy to look it up if you can cite it.


Yeah, so is Antonin Scalia, he talks about this too.

You’re just in the dark here apparently.


BS. Why are you avoiding my question? WHERE in the Constitution? Fish or cut bait!


Because it’s moot.

It’s not about the Constitution “mentioning” common law, it’s that it’s built out of it.

Blackstone’s commentaries, btw, are on Common Law.

It’s equally known that the Constitution has continuity with the Articles, and the Declaration, while mentioning neither.


So, you’re ADMITTING that the Constitution nowhere mentions “common law”, which was my whole point.


Nothing, this is what I said, which you quoted:

Our first measure as a new nation was adopting it . The Constitution was itself explicitly built out of it.

It makes reference to Common law, by using its terms.

If you’re trying to say the Constitution wasn’t based on it, wasn’t influenced, wasn’t borrowing anything, then you’re in the wrong. Common Law practices, are in the Constitution.