These definitions are in conflict. Have you recognized that yet?
Which is the opinion of the Founders, ergo, the one going back 200 years? Which Madison himself spoke on, in rejection of the exclusionary definitions people tried to create through the Aliens & Sedition Acts of 1798?
If you want to make a broad constructionist viewpoint, so you can be consistent with these external ideas you’re having about Nationalism, fine. But I’m sticking to what the document originally meant, and the legacy of the American Experiment.
Because that’s what made America work; gaming on Liberty, gaming on freedom, gaming on the individual character of each person who came here, and only throwing someone out when they proved individually that their character was deficient.
That’s what you’re doing though, you’re projecting that onto me right now;
The court decisions conflict (you can’t deny that), and Heller tries to establish one thing, while Verdugo-Urquidez tried to be more in concert with prior decisions of what the words meant.
Verdugo-Urquidez points out what the consensus has been. The law review points out that even Undocumented immigrants enjoyed rights under that decision in lower court decisions, that they didn’t under Heller.
That’s a fact that is observable, and they list out court decisions that demonstrate this, particularly in how it maintains that illegal immigrants have 5th amendment rights.
What the decision removed for for undocumented immigrants was observance of 1st and 4th ammendment rights , and this. is. stated. to be an about face move compared to what the Court had been doing before:
Ergo, the further back we look in the jurisprudence, the more apparent the position I foreword becomes. Textualism, and Originalism, is on the side of recognizing them as having rights.
And that’s just for illegal immigrants, for legal ones, you’re right back to what I stated; You must treat them in Good Faith.
If you allow the Gov’t treat them in Bad faith when the immigrants showed us Good faith, the Gov’t is more responsible for the resulting trouble than they are when these legal immigrants become illegal immigrants.
And that’s a pretty easy principle for me to substantiate. Because we have a system which has affirmed time & again that laws cannot be unjust. Laws that enforce unjust provisions are more wrong than the people breaking them. There’s plenty of examples for me to pull from to show that.