[nicmarlo]

there are bad case laws is not the same thing as saying law is bad

But your arguments go in line with saying that illegal aliens and their children, should receive, as a matter of course, rights and benefits bestowed upon U.S. citizens, and that to rule otherwise is bad law....and to that extent, I strongly disagree with you.

[chronic_loser]

But your arguments go in line with saying that illegal aliens and their children, should receive, as a matter of course, rights and benefits bestowed upon U.S. citizens, I never said that, nor do I believe it. I am saying that it is an example of an amendment where the drafters of the law did not envision the current mess we have, and weren't specific in the drafting of the amendment to exclude illegal immigrants. Doubtless they would have...., but they didn't. And that is where we are. It is a badly worded law. We can change it by re-amending the constitution (long, expensive, and difficult), change the policy of federal benefits (my choice) or live with it. To rule otherwise would be BAD CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, and since the law is the law of the land, it is BAD LAW. It is not saying that I think it is a morally bad or good thing. I don't believe it to be a good thing. It is just the law as it exists. Let me put it this way: under the CONSTITUTION, blacks were not "persons" under the constitution in pre-Civil war USA. We had a constitutional RULING that specified it as so from the USSC. It was despicable, but it was the law of the land. To rule otherwise is BAD LAW, not because it would have been immoral, but the Constitution is to law like the Bible is to a Christian. It is kind of the ultimate authority in the legal system. If you don't like what it says, change it (or get a court that will re-interpret it "correctly"), or live with it. That is all I was trying to say.