Birthright Citizenship Ended by Executive Order


All of which goes back to the Romans and Greeks (all human experience, really), as well, and can be (and often is) as easily said to be influenced by Mosaic law, or the Talmud, or the Code of Hamurabai, or any of however many it is I’ve forgotten or never even heard of, and yet it. is. none. of. those. things. Just as you are not either of your parents nor an amalgam of them, you are your own person: sprung from, influenced by, the legacy of, but ultimately existing in your own right on your own merits, owing your progenitors no slavish devotion, only the honor due for what they produced, an honor best expressed by producing the absolute best you can offer under the circumstances in which you find yourself, one hopes ultimately contributing to the overall advancement of mankind. But your parents didn’t raise their entire neighborhoods children, did they? They might have scolded them, fed them a meal, or even given the occasional swat on the rear, but ultimately, they were sent home to their actual parents for the majority of their meals, instruction and discipline.

Eh, my metaphor is getting little muddled, but, dammit, it fits!


Sure, natural law was “discovered” first by the Greeks, and certain practices we have were first codified by Roman Law in Visigothic Spain, as I understand it.

Common Law-based systems is a category of Government, and we’re one of them.

Trying to suggest there’s no continuity or primacy of the law doesn’t hold, when it was Common Law practices we were using to object to the King and Parliament in the first place. They violated those practices, thus it was our right as good Englishmen, we held, to rebel.

It’s baked into the cake of who we are. And we still have it.

And, just in case you thought it wasn’t true:

When the American colonies first declared their independence, one of the
first legislative acts they took was to adopt “reception statutes” which enabled their courts to receive
and develop the English Common Law in accordance with the public policy of these states

Practices of leaving foreigners unmolested clearly continued in the U.S., so the discussion on it is moot.

Equally, places like Hong Kong which benefited from the same Reception statute as we did, while also allowing greater freedom of Association and Contract, prosper better than we do today. Qatar and the UAE built common law courts in their own countries to manage their foreign populations, and it’s part to why they’ve become so successful. Even after diversifying from oil.

I’ll say it once again, unapologetically, Common Law Systems are superior to the rest. They produce better results than the Napoleonic code, or the mixed systems in Asia.

Even the most successful adherents of German Civil law, have had to adopt English Common Law practices in order to be successful on the world stage.


Really? I suggest you GO to Hong Kong and try and make a living there if you think it’s so “prosperous.” You’ll be treated as a pariah.


Yes, exactly. And England was the world’s 2nd largest slave trading nation at the time. Your statement that “English Common Law” is fully inclusive and treats people from every nation the same is pretty obviously BS. You can’t call an ethic fully inclusive and ethnically neutral when it explicitly enslaved people based on ethnicity.

I honestly just wonder if you literally try to make examples that are demonstrably wrong.
Japan’s labor participation rate hasn’t even fallen at all in the demo I mentioned(20-50)
It’s fallen only among 15-20(university) and 55+ (early retirement)
And it’s only fallen 3% overall in the last three decades.

Meanwhile our participation rate has fallen by 10% over the same period

While the university problem and early retirement are both present in our system, we have 3x the change. Is 100% of that illegal immigration? Most likely not even 1/2 of the difference. But I’d say our labor participation rate decline caused by immigration is at least as big as Japan’s total decline(which is not even close to the same scale).

We declined from 86% in the 1950s to 69% today. Now that’s a lot more than immigration - it’s also significantly because of the intelligence problem you’ve been ducking. One that’s not exactly helped by importing 3rd world peasants.

Yes, today. In 2018 after they’ve been experimenting with your “Take everyone no matter what” philosophy for the last 20 years.
As recently as 1991 less than 5% of London was non-White (page 5)

If you want to say “I think people of every nation should be treated identically” then take it up as your own personal belief. Saying that’s always what this country was about is just a flat out lie.

What did President Lincoln think of equally as the person who supported ending the centuries long practice of slavery?

Is this how you would define treating everyone exactly the same AS? That’s the history of the country you’re saying was always color and nationality blind.

It’s a pretty obvious absurdity that has no basis in history whatsoever.

Maybe what you should instead argue is that Christianity has had a millennia long stance of welcoming everyone into the church regardless of ethnicity - that has a lot truth to it. But the United States and the United Kingdom very, very clearly did not. What you’re talking about is a brand new idea floated at absolute best in the 1960s and probably didn’t become the majority opinion until the 1990s. And even that’s stated opinion. I’m skeptical the median American legitimately believes that a typical Yemenni is on equal footing with the typical Israeli.

Standards will disproportionately affect some countries over others.

I think most people disagree with Disparate Treatment. But it takes willful blindness to believe in the harm of Disparate Impact.


Except the people I talked about, who clearly were not British, did not go there as slaves. Stating that there was an (internal) class of people they treated poorly, doesn’t change the fact that for people they did recognize as freepersons (which included blacks) they were free to come, to trade, and to live there.

The ethic existed, and it was followed. All that you are pointing out here is that slaves were treated as non-free. Meanwhile, freeperson blacks were coming and living there as early as the Seven-years war.

It’s not wrong.



Stating the rate of decline doesn’t change the point. Japan’s demographic and economic crises has been going on for decades, whereas ours is more recent. We haven’t been in a recession for 30 years, and our fertility rate didn’t crest below replacement until the last decade.

The fact that the harm they’re going through has stabilized, doesn’t change the fact that they’re experiencing the same trend.

There’s a hump in the middle. Labor Participation increased in the 90s at the same time immigration was increasing. They both started to decrease 2001-2002, at the same time we hit the 2001 recession.

Cwolf? I have not.

Deskilling, not automation, is the primary way technology works itself upon our economy.

We are never going to stop finding complicated jobs we can simplify through technology, that a less skilled person can then do.

Those jobs then scale, and less skilled people then do them.

For instance, a less intelligent person could never have been a clerical worker for tracking & moving packages, but they can do such a job now, with help of a hand bar code scanner.

Which meant more packages could be moved, and thus our entire parcel-logistical system became quicker and more widespread. A trend parcel companies seized on to good effect.

Oh and good news Cwolf, technology is giving us another way to intervene in people; tertiary cognition, driven by AI. It’s one of Elon Musk’s projects.

What you’re pointing out is distance, cost of travel, and shifting fertility trends. If you broke the white population down, you’d see a good portion of them are actually immigrants off the Continent.

Immigrants from other places are accelerating in growth, because the Continent has crested in fertility, while more and more places abroad now have the means to travel to England.

I’m talking about the law. Common Law did not treat foreigners differently, and that’s a fact. Nothing you’ve offered here denies this.

Cwolf, going to political figures pulled out of their context, doesn’t change anything.

Lincoln evolved on his position, and wanted to award citizenship to black soldiers who had served. It’s likely he would have evolved further had he lived.

Slavery equally doesn’t change anything, as it says nothing of how freepersons, a category which had included more than just whites, were treated.

People from other countries were allowed to go about their business, unmolested. Exceptions to the rule don’t change that, as it wasn’t even an exception predicated on place of origin, it was one predicated on class.

There were still black freepersons - people coming in from other countries, who are the ancestors of half of African-Americans alive today. To include Colin Powell.


John Stossel went there, and set up a business (with all necessary permits) in a single day.

Is there anywhere left in America where a foreigner can do that? Or even a citizen for that matter?


No he didn’t. He went to SINGAPORE…NOT Hong Kong.

However, it makes no difference to my point. BTW, there’s nothing wrong with our “fertility rate.” It’s just that we keep murdering our progeny in the womb that keeps our BIRTHRATE below replacement.


He might have also gone to Singapore, but he went to Hong Kong for the story I’m talking about.

This has been a talking point of his.

Yes there is, we’re below replacement. Even if Abortions stopped (which I’m all for), we’d still be below replacement. And it wouldn’t change the trends.

Abortions rates have also decreased, as women altogether are just getting pregnant, less often.


We’re “below replacement” BECAUSE of abortions. You can’t wipe out more than 60 MILLION kids over 45 years and expect to achieve replacement levels.


Birth control measures in general certainly have, but we’re also coupling less, and having less sex.

It appears to me that we’re basically heading into Universe 25 territory. Of which Japan is one of the more advanced cases.


Who have you been talking to that told you we’re “having less sex?” I suggest you don’t have the least CLUE who’s having sex and who isn’t.


People are themselves reporting that they’re having less sex – my entire generation is going the same way as the Japanese.


“People are reporting?” “Reporting” to whom? I don’t know of ANYONE who has EVER been asked by ANYONE how much sex they might be having. Not even close friends, let alone a “surveyor”.


Having porn on demand, a plethora of distractions in general, and newer generations being less socialized altogether, has lead to a falling trend.


Exactly, all of his arguments are based on ridiculous statistics that anyone can tell have no credibility, meanwhile all of the credible realities are dismissed out of hand.

The Left are buying a constituency from other nations with the property of citizens; once that motivation is accepted everything they support makes perfect sense.


Thomas Sowell thinks they have credibility, so too does Old Dog’s guy, Peter Zeihan. Fertility cycles are consistent points of theirs.

Our current trend appeared earlier in Japan, which makes sense, as they hit sociological trends ~15 years before we do. Their baby boomer generation was about 15 years before ours.

You’re as fixated upon this as the Left is in attaching everything to Global warming.

Sorry RET, but we do have other causes of our problems, and not every problem is political.


America is a “public forum” for AMERICAN citizens…not every human being on the planet! WHY you cannot see that explains a lot about how badly your education has been achieved. If a business owners invites a foreign worker to come here illegally to work, that business owner needs to be fined OUT of business because he HAS abetted a trespass against EVERY American citizen.


You have no business citing Thomas Sowell on this or any OTHER issue. Thomas Sowell is a brilliant economist. He doesn’t agree with you about ANYTHING…certainly not about “fertility issues.”


It’s everyone, or you’re saying rights are created by Government.

That’s the Rub Dave, you can’t avoid it. Are rights Natural, or are they made by Government?

You keep sidestepping the question.


LMAO, Too late, I’ve been citing him for years here; I have most of his books, and his talking points form the origins of many of my own.

Including tariffs:

Wage stagnation:

Cultural assimiliation.

And yes, female fertility cycles. That’s part of how he addresses the gender wage gap; demonstrating that women in the 1930s were actually less fertile than women in the '50s or '60s (and were earning more degrees), decoupling the idea that Feminism created any straight arrow of history on the matter.

Here he is, talking about it:

Sorry Dave, but you clearly need a refresher if you don’t remember any of this.

Chapter 9 of Basic Economics , just FYI. I suggest getting the 5th edition, as he lists his sources in that one; the very statistics RET claimed had no credibility.