The constitution is for legal and Natural born citizens. Not for those who come here illegally and break our laws.
The Constitution does not make that distinction except for qualification to hold the office of Presidency. You are also claiming that naturalized citizens, not being Natural Born should not have Constitutional Rights.
>The constitution is for legal and Natural born citizens. Not for those who come here illegally and break our laws.
Not quite; the Constitution is for the formation of the federal government, and the Bill of Rights to further clarify the restraints of the federal government.
Directly from the preamble to the Bill of Rights:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The problem that I see arising from a stance of “the Bill of Rights only applies to Citizens”, is that the government could conceivably unilaterally declare people’s citizenship void and then act on that.
However, a conviction on the person’s presence (being an illegal alien) is another matter entirely.
Now if that same kind of reasoning can be applied to welfare “entitlements” we’d be on our way to sanity.