Arizona Immigration Law in the hands of the Supreme Court.Ah, Scalia is the best.

Essentially they have made it so that almost every SINGLE right granted to citizens can be applied to illegals because theyve played the wording the Constitution to the point where as long as the state has juridiction over the person, they are granted most all rights as would be granted to a citizen.

See the important words there, "almost" puts CAPS LOCK into very very small letters, "jurisdiction" is very important too as that confers rights in both directions, and "most all" waters down your objection even further.
It isn't something new, that chinese ruling is well over 100 years old so anyones entitlement to rights within the jurisdiction are well established.

As to your 14th amendment, they amended the constition here over the same issue, it still doesn't do what they wanted and in fact makes it worse for citizens.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

As to your 14th amendment, they amended the constition here over the same issue, it still doesn't do what they wanted and in fact makes it worse for citizens.

The purpose of the 14th amendment is irrelevant today. It was instituted to protect the rights of freed slaves, and to nullify the Dred Scott SCOTUS decision that stated slaves were not guaranteed rights under the constitution.

I do not see how it applies to fencejumpers, and good swimmers, who manage to spawn sproglets here.
Not being critical of your post, or judging your side, simply using your quote to make a point.

Not being critical of your post, or judging your side,

Which side?
My objection to the bill are the same as when it was put through.
That it isn't workable, and also that it will be too expensive.
So which side does that put me on?
In favour of active and effective action against illegals, with a side serving of fiscal conservative.

simply using your quote to make a point.

A similar point, writing in changes that don't really do what they are meant to do that also have effects they were not meant to have.

[soopaman2]

I just did not want you to think my quote of your post, was to dispute or attack. I have been trying to be nicer to my fellow forumites recently, as at times I have not always been.