Truth is, I'm confused about this immigration ruling.

When it come to the 2d Amendment, the cry from those who believe it's wording, (I am one of those), say....."what part of Shall Not Be Infringed don't you understand"?

With the 14th Amendment, the same cry can be......."what part of Born In.......Citizen of The United States" don't you understand"? Originally Posted by Jackie S

Both amendments should be interpreted based upon their historical basis.

The 14th amendment was not passed to focus on persons illegally entering the U.S. or illegally remaining in the U.S. who had children in this country (whether conceived in this country or abroad), but persons who were forced to be in this country by virtue of aggravated kidnapping and sold as property, who ultimately had children born to them while "in captivity" or while they were "owned"! The former made a conscious decision to sneak into the country (some for that purpose alone) and the latter were here by force and not of their own volition.

The 1965 Act makes that clear by the definition ... the "child" must be 21 years old!

" That in the case of parents, such citizen must be at least twenty-one years of age."

And throughout the Act it repeatedly qualifies in terms of legitimately and qualified to be in the United States, which presupposes LEGAL entry and NOT ILLEGAL presence.

piss off sod head Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

No! Giving you a factual answer is a waste of time. You prove that daily by giving BBBJ's down at the truck stop through the wall .... with no screening.

Jackie asked a serious question (see the "?"....?????). Your questions aren't!

Yours are more along the lines of .....

"What's taking us so long to get there" from the backseat before we leave the driveway. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Seeing each of us cited the same thing, why don't both of you go fuck yourself. Or get a room if you wish.

Seeing each of us cited the same thing, why don't both of you go fuck yourself. Or get a room if you wish. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Yours are more along the lines of .....

"What's taking us so long to get there" ......

So are your ridiculous rants. Grow up!

Yours are more along the lines of .....

"What's taking us so long to get there" ......
It was a link, what did you think it was?
So are your ridiculous rants. Grow up! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Otherwise you were grasping for a reason to make an ass of yourself. congrats you succeeded.

Here is another parallel between the 2d Amendment and the 14th Amendment.

"The founding fathers never invisioned individule citizens being able to own firearms that could allow a single person to kill and maim so many people in such a short period of time".

"Following the Civil War, the framers of the 14th Amendment never invisioned millions of pregnant women entering the US by any means possible in order to drop a baby on US soil in order to emmediatly qualify for a host of welfare benefits unobtainable in their home Country".

It is difficult to argue one, and not the other.

The only differentiation in my opinion would be the 2d Amendment is part of our Bill of Rights, while all subsequent Amendments, while being just as much "the law of the land", are not.

When it come to the 2d Amendment, the cry from those who believe it's wording, (I am one of those), say....."what part of Shall Not Be Infringed don't you understand"?

With the 14th Amendment, the same cry can be......."what part of Born In.......Citizen of The United States" don't you understand"? Originally Posted by Jackie S

+ 1 !!!!!

Here is another parallel between the 2d Amendment and the 14th Amendment.

"The founding fathers never invisioned individule citizens being able to own firearms that could allow a single person to kill and maim so many people in such a short period of time".

"Following the Civil War, the framers of the 14th Amendment never invisioned millions of pregnant women entering the US by any means possible in order to drop a baby on US soil in order to emmediatly qualify for a host of welfare benefits unobtainable in their home Country".

It is difficult to argue one, and not the other.

The only differentiation in my opinion would be the 2d Amendment is part of our Bill of Rights, while all subsequent Amendments, while being just as much "the law of the land", are not. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Except Scalia made the distinction in Heller.

The two amendments have different purposes: The 2nd was merely confirming an existing right and the 14th was creating a status that did not previously exist.

Both are interpreted based upon their respective purposes.

Otherwise The Immigration Act of 1965 would have been unconstitutional.

[QUOTE=Jackie S;1058320694

"Following the Civil War, the framers of the 14th Amendment never invisioned millions of pregnant women entering the US by any means possible in order to drop a baby on US soil in order to emmediatly qualify for a host of welfare benefits unobtainable in their home Country"[/QUOTE]

In addition to that, they also never envisioned that the 14th would be used to give gays & homosexuals gay marriage rights considering that sodomy & homosexuality were illegal in all states & the terrirtory at the time of its enactment.