Dope isn't arguing terms at all, as near as I can tell. He's arguing context of the original law (amendment), and then appealing to not-law of "why should they benefit from misbehavior".

Dope was arguing that the current issues on birthright citizenship and illegal immigrant parents weren't contemplated in 1868. We had the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1822, and our history is pretty much hostile to immigration. At one point we limited immigration to Western Europe - didn't like Zsa Zsa.

What Dope hasn't taken into account is that some of the Constitution isn't clear, can be interpreted, and there isn't much to explain what it meant back then, and other parts are clear, unambiguous, and there's a lot of contemporaneous documentation to look at too. Those are two ends of the range, but birthright citizenship is the latter.

The other thing that's been pointed out is that the Supreme Court not picking it up *IS* a decision, so if that happens he gets a decision, but not the one he wants.

If Dope doesn't like what the Constitution unambiguously says and that is supported by all the historical docs, then he makes up reasons to support what Fearless Leader has proclaimed.

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.