Its a little silly to suggest that people didn’t unlawful migrant across Americas before the term was coined, or did America just not have border policy before “x” date.
I know a lot of Canadian migrated back and fourth across the Northern border.
There’s no evidence to support that claim.
He’s never going to overturn Obergefell, so you’ll be stuck with that feeling of disgust every time you read about a new gay marriage in your local newspaper for the rest of your life. 
Until there was law restricting immigration all immigration was by definition legal. Something only becomes illegal when law is passed to that effect.
And gay marriage will never be legal… .
Gay Marriage is legal in every state.
It’s as legal as your right to kick them off your property because they give you the willies.
…except, of course, the text of the amendment itself and the words of the Senators who wrote the amendment.
You would be incorrect on this. There was dispute over what was intended in the amendment (children born here and under the juristiction of). So you actually HAVE to go outside the constitution to the debate. Some say it was intended only for slaves. BUT when you read the debate, it was asked if it would cover both the children of the Gypse and the Children of Migrant Chineese workers. The debate shows that it WOULD. Remember at the time there was no legal and illegal imigrant. So it essentially – at the time, covered EVERYONE who was born in the United States and under the Juristicion of. The only one’s not under the juristiction of embasarods and certain members of their staffs that could not be charged with crimes.
Again you would be incorrect. The court essentially ruled that the perameters of the individual states to set up Eminent domain was a states rights issue. The federal government had it’s own perameters that it had to follow, but each state was given latidute to define public good.
So that ruling was correct as well (states rights)
1 Like
Read the debate. It was also to apply to the children of the Gypse and the children of Migran Chineese workers. Once that was done, it was expanded to any child born in the United state (with the exception in my last post)
Actually there is one status of a parent that is not included. Diplomats and certain staff members that states and the federal government are not able to charge with crimes.
Careful there WR.
Your making it so liberals can interpret the 2nd amendment with what existed at the time.
1 Like
At the time the Amendment passed, it also did not apply to Native Americans who were born on reservations.
None of them said anything about illegal immigrants.
No I’m not. Fireams existed at the time and that’s specifically what they sought to protect along with all other known “arms” which was an all inclusive term.
That’s because they were not considered “people” but considered savages – that’s the word that used repeatedly in the debate record.
None of them said it would only apply to legal immigrants.
Its also because reservation where at the time quasi-sovereign states.
Who were not illegal aliens. There were no illegal aliens until the first laws passed defining same.
Dude your losing here.
Arms inclusing of everything . . even things that didn’t exist.
However your not reading the 14th that way. You are reading it with a very limited and narow scope, were you read the 2nd very broadly and unlimited.
