Birthright Citizenship Ended by Executive Order


Yes, just as racism and xenophobia was the norm. Despite your attempts to white wash it. There was never a time in Western history(and most likely anywhere), where hordes of foreign people were just welcomed in without question.

And that was in a time where it was truly a “sink or swim” situation. There was no welfare, so if you and your migrant wife couldn’t manage to pay for your kid’s food - well, your kids died and the problem settled itself.

Not how it works with a modern welfare state that happily spends $10,000 a year putting your kids through “English as a 2nd language” schools, and covering a good $6-8,000 more in expense annually for each kid.


Okay, I’m putting the breaks on, because you keep digressing.

The point is that we had freedom of movement, which is what began this discussion.

Foreigners could come and go as they pleased. We didn’t rescind their rights to liberty or property, simply because they were foreign.

The reason this was allowed, is because that is how common law is constructed. And common law was constructed this way, because Natural law, as John Locke, Blackstone, and earlier jurists defined it, called for it.

You can’t deny this Cwolf. America was run like an open port. People acting on personal stigmas and creating implicit limitations, doesn’t change that reality or what the text of the law was.

We had no border patrol, no visas, no requirements. The only limitation was on naturalization, which is equally the only part of this the Constitution itself speaks to.

The only part we saw the Founders do anything about (the Alien & Sedition acts).

The only part we enforced in law for over a century.


No nation can POSSIBLY survive if it throws open its borders to anyone who takes a notion to move there. Politicians recognized this and passed our immigration laws for the PURPOSE of controlling who can come here and who cannot…and at LEAST knowing who IS coming here and why.


That would explain how the British immigrants in 1812 burned down the capital.
I suppose it explains the Alamo as well.

I’m clearly the one not understanding the true history of how we let everyone in no matter what and gave everyone equal treatment under the law just with millions of oppsie exceptions.

You’ve failed to convince me of the historical accuracy of your statement.

But you know who did have a policy not challenging foreign intrusion? The Peruvians, the Aztecs, and the Cherokee.

Tell me AS, how well did that policy go for them?


You’re conflating two things, and you’re not realizing it.

I’m talking about the law, and what it meant. We know this is what it meant, because the Founders stated it, fought for it, and were apart of a broader intellectual movement that argued for it.

What you’re offering is a structural criticism, which says people both everyday and in Government, didn’t live up to it.

Which is fair game. But it doesn’t change what the law was, or what it was saying. Or what the general policy was in most cases.

There was a change going on in America where slave owners turned into abolitionists. That change was also giving abolitionists ample ammo to incrementally limit slave ownership in our laws.

There had to be an ethic for that change to occur; you only understand it generally as “Christianity”, I’m telling you that the ethic more specifically was called Natural Law. The end of slavery was the fulfillment of something the Founders laid down, as both Lincoln and the Confederacy claim.

Lincoln references the Northwest Ordinance constantly in his own arguments for limiting slavery, and the Confederates call out the Founder’s actions in their Cornerstone Speech; rejecting it wholesale:

So Cwolf; are you now making the Confederacy’s argument?

I’m going to have to ask on what grounds you deny it.

What laws were in place to block it? Who were we turning away? Jefferson was wantonly inviting in Hindus and Muslims; so was Washington.

These actions make perfect sense to me, based on what I understand about them. How do you explain it?


They were doing no such thing! In their day, “different religions” meant, Anglican, Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, etc., NOT Shinto, Islam, Hindu or Zooastrianism. What we now refer to as different denominations, they considered different religions. If you knew ANYTHING about the founders you’d know this.


Uh, here they are talking about it:

Jefferson’s criticism of Islam was something he equated to Catholics. Yet, he didn’t look to ban Catholics either. “Universalism” is inherent to how both men looked at these things, as that’s how they read Locke.

The more you know…


Nonsense, of course. Obviously, Jefferson and some others knew LITTLE about Islam, regardless of the fact that Jefferson had an early translation of the Q’uran. Islam doesn’t believe in “reincarnation.” They believe that their main path to eternal paradise is to kill infidels–meaning anyone who rejects Islam and they arrive there upon their own death.


Not the part about the Founders inviting these people in, obviously. They were taking after what Locke wrote in the Letter on Toleration (1689).

“[Locke] says neither Pagan nor Mahometan (Muslim) nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion.”

“(O)ur civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.”

“to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan [Muslim], the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”

– Thomas Jefferson

You should read on in the source I offered Dave, what people in the Founding era were saying at the time about Muslims might shock you.


There was a time in our history when people believed that Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the SAME GOD. We now know that to be untrue. With increased knowledge comes increased skepticism.


Yeah, it does. Do you understand how language can mean something different in different cultures, or different contexts? You can’t argue the law was written with the intent of race and nationality blindness when 0% of the people who wrote the law believed in those things or practiced those things.

You are suggesting that laws written 300+ years ago premised something that no one believed until 100 years ago, and is an extreme niche minority view even today. Virtually no one on Earth believes in treating foreigners the same way citizens are treated. Every country in existence has legal distinction between the two.

You would be the one making the Confederate argument, as you just quoted the Vice President of the Confederacy gas lighting about how the Founders “rested upon the assumption of the equality of races” which is demonstrably false. You and Mr. Stephens are positing this. I am not.

The Founders very clearly did not consider the races equal. Nor did President Lincoln who was an abolitionist and VERY progressive for his era. He explicitly states that the races are not equal, and he would never deem to treat them thusly.

The only person in the 19th century you can scrounge up to say what you believe is literally the #2 guy of the rebel government. Probably not the best person to ask about the Union’s historical perspective.

Sure. That’s quite different from “unfettered Islamic migration”.

I’m very confident every single one of the Founders and about 99% of slave holders would have agreed with the statement of “There is a black person who is better than some white people”. Or “There is a Muslim who is more moral than some particular person who wears the title of Christian on their sleeve”.

That’s quite different from saying “Between a million immigrants from Austria and a million from Ethiopia, I have no preference”.


I understand what natural law is. Be honest, have you looked into this at all?

I had to learn it through PJTV contributors like Scott Ott and Bill Whittle. They make it pretty clear that this is in fact what the Founders believed, as does the Founder’s own actions on the matter.

Why else would Jefferson Defend Muslims and Hindus in the law? Why would Washington write to Muslim nations in North Africa that their people were welcome, and Christianity was not required to enjoy our liberties here?

I need to see you address this.

Again, Natural Law tradition. Cicero was claiming this 1900 years ago.

This ethic didn’t invent itself in the 60’s or 100 years ago, it’s far older than that.

And that it’s foundations were sandy, and would be blown away. Which is what you’re suggesting. That multi-ethnic societies can’t survive.

They did in matters of law; everyone had a right to liberty and property. Again Cwolf, there’s something you need to address.

If they weren’t trying to hard wire Universal rights into our society, why would slave holders agree to laws that were meant to phase out slavery? It does them no good practically, in fact it injures them, but it does serve an ethic. An ethic they spoke on constantly.


Okay, you’re obviously just being a troll, here.


No I’m not; The Founders parsed the issue as to naturalization.

Not every had the right to naturalize; everyone had the right to liberty and property. Their belief that it had to be everyone, is what lead to them to laying groundwork to take slavery apart.

and again, even James Madison said that aliens are party to the protections of the Constitution.

Why would he say that, if he didn’t mean it?

What this comes down to is not being familiar with the Founders thinking, as the classical liberal arts education that taught their ideology in full was lost mid-20th century, save for a few well-preserved spots like Hillsdale.


Uh, since Cicero died in 49 BC, it was a bit longer than 1900 years ago and in reading his writings, I can find NOTHING in them touting “natural law” in the sense YOU are using it.

Also, you are conveniently forgetting that Sweden and Norway were imminently “stable” societies for much of the last century…UNTIL they decided that becoming “multi-ethnic” was a “compassionate” way to go. Their societies are in chaos today and we’re talking about just TWO “ethnicities” instead of the 200 or so with which THIS country must contend.


Cicero’s version of Natural Law included such ideas as human equality and that government should be based on the consent of the governed.

Founders like Jefferson and John Adams took him as a personal inspiration; held him up as a model of a Statesman.


Obviously, Mr Powell INTERPRETED what Cicero said as “natural law.” Cicero never called it that. Jefferson and John Adams BOTH kept slaves until their respective deaths, which kind of knocked into a cocked hat your idea that they embraced “human equality.”


"the principles of nature and eternal reason.

Pretty much.

Why were they trying to get rid of slavery then? Why did Jefferson condemn slavery as an institution that defiled both the slave, and the slave holder?

Why did he stop the international slave trade, and write the Northwest Ordinance? The very law that influenced Abraham Lincoln’s thought on the matter?


…and yet, he MAINTAINED his slaves until his death. Why? Because he believed that they were incompetent to look after themselves. Hardly someone who believed in “human equality.”


Jefferson was flat broke. That’s why he kept his slaves. The sheriff was about to sell Montecello out from under him. People were organizing a lottery to help with his debts when he died. The tickets are collectors’ items that sell for several thousand dollars each.

As for stopping the importation of slaves in 1808, that was in the Constitution. Slave importation was to end 20 years after the document was ratified. Jefferson was only obeying the law.