I can immediately imagine a connection to a country which does not allow you to vote: bearing children, thereby ensuring an future for the country in question."Illegals (who cannot vote) bear children in this country. You're saying they have a connection to this country? You're saying their children ensure a future for this country?
I can equally argue that they and their children pose a threat to this country. That it is not their intent to assimilate or become citizens. To the contrary, it is their intent to take back the land negotiated in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
"For example, you must be of a certain age to vote, or be at least 18 and not be judged to be crazy in order to lawfully possess a firearm, etc., etc."
Yes. Those are decisions made by each state.
"and despite his not legally have the ability to do such, is not charged with any crime."
Again, state law.
My only point was a constitutional protection extended to "the people" does not include "all persons" or even "all citizens" If the constitutional protection extended to all persons (eg., the 5th amendment) it said "person". If it extended only to citizens (eg., Article IV, Section 2) it said "citizens".
"Illegals (who cannot vote) bear children in this country. You're saying they have a connection to this country? You're saying their children ensure a future for this country?" You're taking this in a tangent which is false due to the fact that illegal aliens bearing children on American soil are not citizens. The fact that their children are is a liberal (and wrong) interpretation of the 14th amendment, and yes, such children are indeed a threat to this nation. As much a threat as the politicians and activist liberal judges who have so "perverted the plain meaning of words", as Samuel Adams put it.
I find this sort of discussion rather fun -- legally defining terms like "people", "citizen" and the like are truly a worthy mental exercise, in addition to being matters of such importance. I'm at work right now, so I'll check in again later.
