That's part of it. The other part is that Blackstone states shortly thereafter that English-born children of aliens CANNOT inherit from their parents. They DO NOT have that privilege. Blackstone had to qualify his statement with a disclaimer because the English-born children of aliens DID NOT have the same privileges as English-born children of English subjects.
That won't change no matter how many times you try to argue against it. It was a firm matter of English law.
“The other part is that Blackstone states shortly thereafter that English-born children of aliens CANNOT inherit from their parents.”
What Blackstone ACTUALLY wrote:
“But this opinion has been since overruled: and it is now held for law, that the sons of an alien, born here, may inherit to each other. ...IT is also enacted, by the statute II & 12 W III. c. 6. that all persons, being natural-born subjects of the king, may inherit and make their titles by descent from any of their ancestors lineal or collateral; although their father, or mother, or other ancestor, by, from, through, or under whom they derive their pedigrees, were born out of the king’s allegiance.”
At this point, continuing to claim that Blackstone says “English-born children of aliens CANNOT inherit from their parents” is a LIE. He very specifically states that they can, “from any of their ancestors lineal or collateral”.
Alien or not doesn’t matter: “although their father, or mother, or other ancestor...were born out of the king’s allegiance”.
Your sentence fragment doesn’t mean what you think it means, any more than Minor means what birthers claim.
“it is now held for law, that the sons of an alien, born here, may inherit to each other.” Collateral inheritance.
I’m sorry to hear your sentence fragment confuses you. Sentence fragments often do. That is why the law is not written in sentence fragments.
It is OK for you to be in error. It is not OK to lie about what someone wrote. Blackstone was very clear.