I hope you will forgive me for misquoting you. That quote was a distillation of what you believe, though. Is it not? I don't think it misrepresented what you believe.
Let's cool the flames off for a while.
There are serious questions that have to be considered, in this police action on foreign terrorists, which presents legal questions the country hasn't faced since the War between the States, or ever.
In Phyler vs. Doe, the judges answer the obvious - that a person is a person. That is so obvious, that it's ludicrous to even say it. The question is - was the Constitution established to secure the blessings of liberty to everyone in the world who might be inside the United States' borders, or was it established to secure those blessings to people of the United States? You know what I think. The court hasn't had to directly face this argument, from what it looks like. Those lawyers hung their hopes on the text "within its jurisdiction", and argued a different case than me. My basis is more widespread.
Throughout the Constitution, it is implied that "persons" are only those who are "of the United States."
Take the clause on Treason for example.
"No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses..."
Well, a foreigner "is a person", and you can hardly convict a foreigner inside the United States of Treason. There's no question that this "person" mentioned has to be attached to the United States in some meaningful way. Clearly this use of the word "person" has the implication that he is "of the United States" behind it. Why then does the "person" in the fifth, or "people" in the 4th, not have to only be "of the United States"?
By what you're (and these judges) interpretation of "person" is, a foreigner could be convicted of Treason, by the language in Article III section 3, and this is ridiculous. You can't commit treason against a country that is not your own. Article III S.3 only makes sense if the word "person" is a citizen, or legal immigrant whose citizenship is pending, who is "of the United States". The "people" and the "persons" the Constitution mentions throughout its text, are all people "of the United States". Others are refered to as "citizens or subjects of ...foreign state[s]". BTW, I'm wondering if the Judges in the Phyler vs. Doe case didn't violate the 11th Amendment. The Fed courts have no authority in cases brought by foreigners against States like Texas. Looks like somebody has dropped the ball.
How did this case even get heard by the Supreme Court if the litigants were foreigners? I don't think they should be able to hide behind a guardianship. The guardian is not the one who is damaged. This farthest this case should have gotten is the Texas Supreme Court.
The United States set itself up as the one country in the world that believed that "all men are created equal" and that we all have rights granted by God.
How ridiculous is it to argue that the very same people who made such statements on the purpose and reasons WHY this nation was giving birth to itself, would then turn around and claim that those lofty ideals pertained only to those born on American soil.
If you believe in the principles that the Founders set forth, and their vision, then you MUST believe that all men are truly "created equal," and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
All men Hugh, not just American citizens.
You see Hugh, the argument isn't whether all men are antitled to the protection afforded by the Constitution, but rather whether we are the true guardians of the principles set forth by the Founders, or the selective oppressors they wished to distance themselves from.