[MissAmericanPie]

I do not agree that invaders crossing our borders are "persons" in the sense that they are entitled to remain, nor are they entitled to "due process", not are they entitled by their illegal presence to the "civil rights" accorded law abiding citizens of the United States.

Your immigration lawyerese is about to hit a dead end on what "is", is and what "person" is. The Constitution gives the government the ability and obligation to support a military to repel invasions. You will not be allowed to play games with the definition of "invasion" invasion is, a) an entering or begin entered by an attacking military force. b) an intruding upon others. The day has come and gone for you immigration lawyers to continue to be allowed to play your word games.

[BlackElk]

Dearie, read the Fourteenth Amendment and weep. You may not like it but it is what it is. AND it is available for anyone else here to check out as well.

[BlackElk]

MAP: Why does it matter whether you agree or disagree? Your pack of opinions (which are like noses, etc.) is just that. Will we be expecting you to address the actual language of the Fourteenth Amendment which disagrees with your opinions or will you continue to run on about "law-abiding citizens" while specifically refusing to accept the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment? Non-border America wants to know.

This also goes for dirtboy who has not proven worthy of more extensive response. Let's hear something about the specific language of the Fourteenth Amendment and what it says of "persons" if you expect response to the border disorder.