If, God forbid, you were disabled in an auto accident that was caused by the negligence of an "illegal" immigrant millionaire with $100 million in identifiable assets, would you be able to and likely to invoke the civil jurisdiction of our US courts to attach that property and sue the "illegal" immigrant miscreant seeking damages? Or would you claim that you cannot sue him/her here and restrict yourself to suing in the "illegal" alien's nation of citizenship? Our courts will gladly entertain your suit. If we don't like the civil justice system of a foreign nation like Saudi Arabia, our courts wll allow you to sue a Saudi Arabian citizen for similarly injuring you in Saudi Arabia and the Saudi defendant might seek to invoke American jurisdiction to get the benefit of our jury system (if shrimp whistle and pigs fly but COULD invoke US jurisdiction).
I would be anxious to see ONE case citation in which your remarkable theory that "illegal" aliens are not subject to civil jurisdiction was upheld and not subsequently reversed.
The rule of law is dead because of the evil theory of legal positivism promulgated by long dead elitist SCOTUS Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., that the law is what SCOTUS says it is. It is not my theory. I don't side with it BUT I am tired of pro-lifers fighting with one (or both) hand(s) tied behind our backs.
If your methodology is to scrupulously imagine yourself observing each and every jot and tittle of what you imagine to be constitutional law and statutory law and somehow make the judges do likewise, what color are the moons in your sky?
The purpose of the exercise should not be self-righteously patting ourselves on the back for being right but to put an end to the SCOTUS imposed slaughter.
Offhand, in a contest for prolifehood between Mexicans and the Junior League, my money is on the Mexicans. Also, it is much more than likely that Mexicans heading north are a lot less likely socialist than those who lack the gumption or desire to come north.
I agree that Holmes was a traitor to the very essence of constitutional governance and I've written to that effect often.
I've even opined that what we need now is a separation of the Bar and State––since the legal class is so wholly pwned by these notions that corrupt our laws.
But I cannot and will not side with lawlessness of a similar kind to achieve any lofty goal ... simply because I do not trust men to do as good as what we've turned away from––if in a minor issue of the Constitution of one nation (which we are debating now) or in the truly significant issue of divine truth as it is similarly assailed by relativist, universalist and worse (where we might have far more common accord judging from some of your statements).
These are of a kind for me even if they are not commensurate. If I do not struggle for that which is a known quantity, then I won't know what I'm ultimately arguing for or what will be the end result of my labors––even as much as that is humanly possible.
It may be an impossible task for a man to do as I desire, but that doesn't mean I should stop trying.
Man makes choices but God makes outcomes and I can at least take heart in two facts: while it does say that all things work together for the good of those who love the Lord it does not also say that all things work for the bad of those who hate Him (at least in the mortal world before judgment). It may yet be possible for God to bless even a wicked nation like ours for the sake of His elect.
That is the color of the moons in my sky.