It is probably more than that since the majority of the money made in America is sent back and spent in Mexico instead of in local stores adn supporting local business. Good job by all gov. officials for letting this happen, keep up the great work.

 

How would money spent in Mexico affect the total amount of welfare distributed to illegal aliens?

Just to clarify:

 

You think that the Amendment was enacted to legalize a larger group of people, not just blacks?

 

What other classes of people could have been contemplated in 1868? Were those contemplated classes of people taxpayers who financially contributed to the country but were just viewed as 2nd class citizens? Or were those contemplated citizens people who illegally entered the country and attempted to avoid taxation?

 

I have no idea what other group they contemplated but it is obvious they contemplated more than just slaves or they would have used words like "enslaved persons". There were also many people entering the country at that time who were not documented who had children. It is my belief that the framers were aware of this and certainly did not intend to exclude those people from the amendment.

Yes they are subject to our jurisdiction, or by definition they could not be "illegal". We could not arrest them for crimes or anything. They would simply be outside of the law and free to roam and do as they saw fit.

 

As to the intent of the framers, they were smart men. If they had meant for it to be slaves, they would have said that. I feel it was their intent for it to encompass a larger group . . . so you and I disagree on the intent the supreme court decides, and I think they decided long ago.

 

Surely you don't want to play the intent game to its natural conclusion do you? If so, we can have a whole lot of fun with the 2nd amendment.

 

You're using the term Framers pretty loosely. I don't think many of the framers of The Constitution were around when the 14th amendment was written.

I guess it depends on what your think the intent of the 14th amendment is.

It can easily be interpreted that the "intent" of the 2nd amendment wasn't to protect 10 round clips, semi-automatics, etc.. Maybe we should only protect the "arms" that were available in the 1790's.

Yes they are subject to our jurisdiction, or by definition they could not be "illegal". We could not arrest them for crimes or anything. They would simply be outside of the law and free to roam and do as they saw fit.

 

As to the intent of the framers, they were smart men. If they had meant for it to be slaves, they would have said that. I feel it was their intent for it to encompass a larger group . . . so you and I disagree on the intent the supreme court decides, and I think they decided long ago.

 

Surely you don't want to play the intent game to its natural conclusion do you? If so, we can have a whole lot of fun with the 2nd amendment.

 

So illegals are subject to all the benefits of citizens? SS, welfare, education, voting rights, ect...? I am not talking about what they get, I am talking about what they are entitled to. You only talk about the law. Of course they are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws if they are inside of our boarders.

It can easily be interpreted that the "intent" of the 2nd amendment wasn't to protect 10 round clips, semi-automatics, etc.. Maybe we should only protect the "arms" that were available in the 1790's.

 

I think it's pretty clear...

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don't see the part of right to bear arms made during or before 1790.

So illegals are subject to all the benefits of citizens? SS, welfare, education, voting rights, ect...? I am not talking about what they get, I am talking about what they are entitled to. You only talk about the law. Of course they are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws if they are inside of our boarders.

 

I am referring only to children born in this country.

Yes they are subject to our jurisdiction, or by definition they could not be "illegal". We could not arrest them for crimes or anything. They would simply be outside of the law and free to roam and do as they saw fit.

 

As to the intent of the framers, they were smart men. If they had meant for it to be slaves, they would have said that. I feel it was their intent for it to encompass a larger group . . . so you and I disagree on the intent the supreme court decides, and I think they decided long ago.

 

Surely you don't want to play the intent game to its natural conclusion do you? If so, we can have a whole lot of fun with the 2nd amendment.

 

I am referring only to children born in this country.

 

I took the bolded to mean you were talking about the parents.

Yes they are subject to our jurisdiction, or by definition they could not be "illegal". We could not arrest them for crimes or anything. They would simply be outside of the law and free to roam and do as they saw fit.

 

As to the intent of the framers, they were smart men. If they had meant for it to be slaves, they would have said that. I feel it was their intent for it to encompass a larger group . . . so you and I disagree on the intent the supreme court decides, and I think they decided long ago.

 

Surely you don't want to play the intent game to its natural conclusion do you? If so, we can have a whole lot of fun with the 2nd amendment.

 

I want to touch on this.

 

I too think they were smart men I think they intended to include anyone here legally. But no matter how smart they were there is no way they could envision the influx of ILLEGAL immigrants that we have today. And in my mind there is no way they wrote the 14th amendment to as a way for illegals to circumvent the our immigration laws.

I want to touch on this.

 

I too think they were smart men I think they intended to include anyone here legally. But no matter how smart they were there is no way they could envision the influx of ILLEGAL immigrants that we have today. And in my mind there is no way they wrote the 14th amendment to as a way for illegals to circumvent the our immigration laws.

 

I'm sorry...but how can you say this, then turn around an say that the 2nd ammendment is unable to be argued as not applicable to today's situation?

I'm sorry...but how can you say this, then turn around an say that the 2nd ammendment is unable to be argued as not applicable to today's situation?

 

OK, how is the 2nd amendment not applicable to today?

OK, how is the 2nd amendment not applicable to today?

 

I suppose this is the point where the thread deviates from the original question & focuses on the 2nd amendment agendas...

OK, how is the 2nd amendment not applicable to today?

 

How is the 14th ammendment not applicable?

I want to touch on this.

 

I too think they were smart men I think they intended to include anyone here legally. But no matter how smart they were there is no way they could envision the influx of ILLEGAL immigrants that we have today. And in my mind there is no way they wrote the 14th amendment to as a way for illegals to circumvent the our immigration laws.

 

By that same argument, is there any way they could have envisioned a time in which it would have been so difficult to immigrate legally?

I suppose this is the point where the thread deviates from the original question & focuses on the 2nd amendment agendas...

 

You're right, got sucked in.