Correction: The law as you interpret as it's written. You, sir, have no monopoly on that! Cut our Briefers some slack...You know how I feel about personal attacks on fellow Members.
Nope. The law as written.
If one were to apply your position to, say, the Second Amendment, and particularly Sauer’s facetious statement about changed circumstances, then it would be Consittutional to exclude all modern weapons from Second Amendment coverages, because, obviously, they didn’t have cartridge style firearms or semiautomatic or full automatic firearms back then, so they cannot have meant the Second Amendment to apply to those sorts of arms.
That is precisely one of the arguments progs have made; thankfully to-date the Supreme Court has rejected that argument.
Just so, just because they didn’t t have the concept of illegal immigrants when the 14th was enacted is not a ground for saying that illegal immigrants can be excluded from the 14th Amendment.
Furthermore, the whinging about “birth tourism” is just as unavailing because that would be just like saying that modern weapons, like large capacity semi autos, can be excluded from the Second Amendment because it’s so darn easy for a single individual to create mass casualties with a single weapon and a couple of clips, so of course that wasn’t what they “really” meant when they drafted the Second Amendment; that was only meant for single-shot muzzle loading firearms. And that is another argument progs have tried in order to get around the fact that the Second Amendment conflicts with their subjective policy preferences and they don’t want to do the really hard work of convincing their fellow Americans to amend the Constitution to remove the Second Amendment.
