Birthright Citizenship Ended by Executive Order


I’d laugh my rear end off if this weren’t so tragically absurd.


What’s absurd about it?

I think anyone whose followed why Japan’s birth rates have fallen would know how tragically true this is.

Or again, the Universe 25 experiment.


The “right” to come into the U.S. IS a “right” created by government and it carries with it some obligations and duties, one of which is the duty and obligation to come here LEGALLY.


Way to miss the point entirely.


People entered this country for 140 years according to common law tradition. No passports, no paperwork.

The right to enter pre-existed, with no Government involvement. Just like other natural rights .


I got your point. But it doesn’t hold here.

The Ethic of Natural law passed along into America. The Founders directly reference it, and it was used as precedent by jurists.

Further, natural rights are not circumstantial; they’re eternal. They’re a coda to humanity’s own existence.

That’s how the Founders themselves thought of them, and a conservative is tasked to conserve that understanding.

As Madison said of the Constitution, it’s a dead letter.


That’s one of the funniest things I’ve read here in a long time. Yes, Thomas Sowell is a brilliant economist. Perhaps you should pay attention to what he’s said and says. AS clearly does, and AS clearly agrees strongly with Sowell on a great many issues. You might spend some time with that other great modern capitalist economist, Milton Friedman, too.


You forgot the sarcasm tag…


As always, you jibe, but have no actual body to your criticism.

Because, there isn’t any. You can’t point out what I’ve said here that is contradictory to Sowell. You’re consulting headcanon, that Sowell doesn’t follow.


When the government starts respecting my natural right to keep the proceeds of my labor, instead of requiring that the proceeds of my labor support the illegals imported to replace me, then your argument will be valid** Edited by DN**


Lincoln wanted to send most(if not all) of the freed slaves to Liberia. The only reason they weren’t relocated there was because Lincoln himself was assassinated, and the Union decided to punish the South with Reconstruction. It was literally over spite towards the Confederacy - not racial egalitarianism. Lincoln’s VP even said as much. Something to the effect of “It will infuriate them to see negro children learning to read and write when their own children can do neither”.

And Lincoln was extremely progressive for his time. You’re trying to re-write history as though I’m completely unaware of what legal system we come from. It was absolutely not a race or nation blind system.

We had about three hundred thousand Chinese immigrants in the 1800s. They were explicitly barred from obtaining citizenship based on nationality - not class. They were all “free”(as they were not slaves).

Telling me there is no such history is just dumb. Yes, it was codified in the Constitution, and had subsequent federal laws that explicitly barred particular nationalities from obtaining citizenship.


Which is an excuse to build a wall around welfare (which I’m all for).

Which, as you admit, we need to do anyway, because the system is going broke.

Blaming illegals for the existence policy that gives them things is sophistry. They did no such thing; we made those laws ourselves, and we need to revise them.

I’m not the one spinning yarns about national or economic solidarity.

Something no American would speak to if they understood & accepted their heritage. Equally, why that it is our heritage.


Cwolf, it’s pretty clear that were both familiar with what Lincoln was at the time, you’re not sharing new information here.

He wanted to give black Union soldiers citizenship. That was the last adjustment he made to his position before he died, and he had been adjusting it all his life. He started off on slavery by avoiding it, then moved to a Tyrion Lannister-esce idea of containment, then moved to excise it by force.

He was a man, not a fixed point.

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 1750s that slavery could not stand as existing English law sought to treat people, regardless of origin, as equals.

Slavery was not an original feature of English law, but rather an introduction made by Justinian, and it didn’t fit. Blackstone called it “repugnant to reason, and the principles of natural law”. And yes, he partly credits Christianity for why that is the ethic in English law.

The law of England acts upon general and extensive principles: it gives liberty, rightly understood, that is, protection, to a Jew, a Turk, or a heathen, as well as to those who profess the true religion of Christ.

The 1870s you mean, long after the Founders were dead.

The court decision they used to excuse this, admitted openly that nothing in the Constitution gave Congress the power to do it. It was something they were reading into the Constitution on the spot, because they thought such a “national power” would be useful.

Ergo; it’s on the same level as Dred Scott. A departure from the Natural Law ethic, for frivolous reasons. Since the Chinese exclusion act was later repealed, and the personhood of “Mongoloid” Americans upheld by 1898, we can say it was at least partly fixed.

It doesn’t deny that the ethic exists. Or that we never held ourselves to it.

You mean like you, denying the existence of a 2,000 year old tradition on law started by Aristotle, that was incorporated into English law, and our own?

History is as available to you as it is to me Cwolf. It’s your duty to understand what the basis of our Republic was, and if you’re going to speak on slavery, you should understand what was pushing the Founders themselves to end it.

Very few were Quakers; it took a broader ethic at work to seize on the idea that slavery should be done away with. That ethic was natural law.


Gosh, what also happened between 1850 and 1870?
That thing you said didn’t count because it only addressed slave vs freemen?

So let’s break down your amazing logic(I think it’s quite revealing in how you process information in general).

It looks like this:
The Founders believed in treating everyone, regardless of race or nationality exactly the same!
Which is why we had black slaves.
They also believed in national neutrality. Though the very first time we had a large wave of immigrants not from a white European country, the federal government promptly slapped a law down denying them citizenship.

You argue that this is because the courts and Congress in the 1870s were less egalitarian than our Founders who enshrined slavery in the Constitution.

So we have a system where in your mind, Thomas Jefferson felt that an immigrant from Ethiopia is equal in every way to one from France. But, as a matter of sheer happenstance, owned 100% black slaves and 0% non-black slaves. And also had this to say on the matter of what to do exactly with free blacks?

Yes, clearly an equalist our Founding Fathers. The TL;DR of that basically is “They’re ugly, smelly, stupid, lazy, and itching to rape white women, but pretty good at dancing and music”.

We find one of our enlightened Founders(the one most responsible for our Constitution) suggesting we move every single black person out of the country. Based on what AS? The class of freemen? No. Based on skin color.
He’s pretty direct about that.

You have a serious problem with just admitting you’ve gone WAY off the tracks. No, there is no historical legal basis of “treat everyone equally regardless of race or nationality”. That’s because the people who wrote those laws widely considered black people to be little more than animals at best(and quite a number of our minor Founding Fathers insisted they were not in fact human because they lacked souls).

Telling me that people who wanted ZERO black people in America simultaneously treated them as perfect equals under the law despite being naturally dangerous and immoral is pretty ridiculous.

I know where your very dumb defense of separating slavery from race comes from, which does not apply to England. It applied to Rome because it was a totally different system. While the Roman legal system did influence ours a lot, that isn’t true for slavery. Our take on slavery had no more in common with Roman slaves than with Arab or Korean slave treatment. GB didn’t slave trade with whites. The Romans did. Though non-Latin peoples were more often slaves, everyone could be a slave in Rome. Slavery was literally race based in GB. White people could not be traded as slaves. This was explicitly in the law.

Trying to whitewash history and telling black people “Oh, lol - yall are just exaggerating. Let me teach you the REAL truth of how slavery had nothing to do with racism” is like peak white privilege.

Which is again contradicted by actual British legal rulings

What’s the key phrase there? “baptism doth not bestow freedom on him”

A clear distinction between Christianity and British law. British law never held the principles you’re disingenuously stating.

As for Aristotle, I’m sure he was apparently a big believer in race and nation neutrality

Damn. 0/3

It’s like literally ALL of your examples of race and nation blind people, seem to be hyper race and nation discriminating. Yet somehow every abuse other ethnicities suffered happened in spite of the overwhelming sentiment of equality that was apparently prevalent according to the history anals of AS.


I’m amazed by your posturing here Cwolf.

You didn’t address what Blackstone said, you just changed the goalposts.

He wasn’t saying Slavery was gone or existed illegally under the law, he was saying English law stated that people of races and nationalities were to be treated equally, thus Slavery, as an exception to that, had to go. Its existence was inconsistent with the foundations of the rest of the law. That was Blackstone’s point.

Can you acknowledge that or not Cwolf?

Blackstone said it, and he certainly wasn’t lying, so you need to reconcile what he could be saying with his circumstances, not strawmanning the guy.

Your quote of Jefferson equally wasn’t relevant to whether the law treated people who were freemen equally.
You didn’t touch this issue at all.

And it certainly didn’t address why even Jefferson would push to end the International Slave Trade as President, and earlier wrote the Northwest Ordinance, the latter of which served as the legal basis for containing & ending domestic slavery that even Lincoln cited in his speeches.

The quote frankly is a non-sequitur, as we’re not talking about how individuals looked at others, we’re talking about how the law looked at people, and why the Founders, even as slaveholders, even as people who were racist, felt pressed to end slavery, and laid down plans to ensure it would be.

It needs to be asked what that ethic was, where it was coming from.

Basically it came from John Locke, the ideological godfather of the American Revolution.
And John Locke was preaching his own distillation of Natural Law.

Universality in both Civil and Religious rights. The latter is why Jefferson fought for Muslims and Hindus.

And why George Washington said this:

The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights & previleges, if by decency & propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.


And just WHO do you think this slave-owning Washington was referring to by “decency & propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment?” Hint: It was NOT black slaves.


Black freemen, like Prince Whipple, whose featured in the Got dang Crossing of the Delaware painting.

Black patriots; am I the only one here aware that these people existed? Has no one ever come across WallBuilders?


I’m familiar with their existence. You on the other hand seem to be wildly unaware of how black freemen were actually treated. I don’t recall a single prominent freeman black figure in the 18th to mid-19th century who expressed a belief that he was treated equally under the law.

I pointed out centuries of history. Something that “Lord Blackstone” has no more authority to wave away than you do. To say “We must follow the tradition of English Common Law” - when the tradition of English Common Law was slavery is a “No true Scotsman” fallacy.

No sir, you know that thing they did for over three hundreds years? Yeah, that like, totally wasn’t their tradition. It was an exception. Religion of Peace™
This also ignores surfdom which was also slavery with an asterisk and existed for over a thousand years. Surfs were freed in the late 1500s. And what else started in the 1500s? Oh, yeah European utilization of black slavery.

It’s almost like there was a continuous presence of slavery in England for about 1,500 years(which is longer than Islam has existed). It’s like saying “Jihad is not part of Islam”.

I can find people who say that too. It doesn’t make them correct. Especially in historical context.

Humans as a whole actually spent a lot of time maturing as a civilization. This is a good thing! When you try to pretend that human history has always been a giant hand holding expression of equality, it’s not only grossly inaccurate, it undermines the significance of the progress. And it mocks the importance of vigilance against backsliding.


? That isn’t true (check your own source here; as Blackstone states, slavery was bolted onto Common Law ~16-17th centuries due to State interests; the first rulings on slavery by English law decried it), and it isn’t the subject here either.

My point at the start was that we allowed foreigners free entry, and that they were granted protections of their liberty. So too did England. We did this because that was Common Law practice.

Freedom of Association & protection of liberty, even to foreigners, is baked into the bones of Common law. That’s the point here.

The only reason I even went along with your digression on slavery, was to point something out to you:

Why did Slave holding racists decide & lay down groundwork, to end slavery?

Why did they commonly end up freeing their own slaves, either in life or at their deaths? Why did some of them even join abolition societies?

Answer: Because just like Blackstone, they understood the contradiction.

Natural law, the fountain head of the rights they proclaimed they had & which gave their rebellion legitimacy, did not recognize slavery as legitimate.

Jefferson himself acknowledged that slavery violated Natural Law, so too did others like Washington, Franklin and Edward Coles. All of whom owned slaves at one point.

You’ve taken this epiphany of theirs for granted, despite the fact that humanity for eons had accepted slavery as the norm. They were wiling to stand aside from their own place & time, and admit something was wrong.

That kind of introspection takes moral reasoning. And in their own words that reasoning was in fact, Natural Law.


You conveniently overlook the FACT that MOST of the African slave trade to the New World was begun and operated by…wait for it…the British–and with British government approval! The British enslaved whole countries, India, Kenya, Egypt, Ireland, Scotland, parts of Indonesia, S. China and North America for up to 1,000 years. They even tried to halt the formation of Israel militarily for decades and, along with France, decided to divvy up the entire Middle East between themselves after the fall of the Ottomans and THAT occurred within the last 100 years! Oh, the British “officially” ended slavery before we did, but they supported it “unofficially” for LONG after we ended it.