This is not a lack of compassion; it is sanity. Let their own countries deal with the cost. A nation has both a right and a responsibility to protect its sovereignty, and failure to do so is destructive for many reasons. The US is not a wealthy nation by some fluke, and it is not because of the numerous evils that do indeed litter our history (slavery, imperialism, etc), it is rich because of it’s people. We attract and have attracted many smart, ambitious people, seeking a better life. This is good, but it is not enough. We also assimilate these people over time, and are really the only country in the world that effectively does this. Once assimilated, the democratic capitalist system works effectively because people, seeking their own interests, work hard and are productive, and contribute to the advancement of society at large. On top of this, vigorous enforcement of legal contracts, systems of credit, and protection of private property rights encourage savings, investment, and entrepreneurial activity, which generates wealth. Illegal immigration is not conducive to this process, as many people remain outside the system, and are by their presence violating the rule of law, which undermines both respect for it and the institutions for which these laws stand. Over time, this changes the culture of the country, its habits, and the forces that make it productive. While some change is both good and inevitable, the character of a nation is a substantial portion of what makes it productive, and one can look throughout the world and see that the causes of wealth are much the same everywhere: educated people who work hard in nations that vigorously enforce contracts and protect private property end up producing wealthy nations overall.

So, while I am compassionate, I don’t want to see our national wealth, and our ability to generate more, squandered over short term compassion. If we could take care of every last human in the world in the now, but in doing so would create global poverty within 50 years, it would not be worth it. It is similarly not worth it to try to be excessively compassionate with those who illegally enter our nation when the long term cost is the destruction of the wealth and generative capacity that allows us to fund such generosity and attracts people here in the first place.

2. If they came to work, they should have a work visa, or else stay home, don’t come here ILLEGALLY ( I know in some circles that word is not in their lexicon).

3. I think the US has shown great compassion for illegals here – after all, we don’t shoot them at the border (Egypt), detain, rob, beat, etc (Mexico) merely for crossing over.

4. I would imagine that if Mexico wasn’t squandering their oil and drug wealth, and was a functioning democracy, their people would be happy to stay home. Of course, they have a huge illegal immigration problem, too. Not everyone who runs the gauntlet at Mexico’s southern border comes to the US. That’s why Mexico deports so many people back south again.

5. If we should follow Cynthia’s lead, we should just have open borders and let the Canadian Govt (”free” healthcare) sation it’s army at our northern border to deal with the problem of ill-legal aliens.

And Ms. Tucker, I hope you read your own liberal rag the AJC this morning. If so, you will find out that the name of the driver who hit the Good Samaritan on the I-85 ramp and knocked her over the wall causing her to fall 50 feet to her death is Marcelino Chavez-Lopez. He was driving without a license. Go figure. Do think there is a chance he is an illegal? If so, I guess you are oozing concern that maybe he hurt himself in the accident and is in some need of free health care.

You are oozing phoney compassion. You are asking someone else to pay the freight. Yes, it is absolutely terrible that these illegal aliens are in this terrible position. I would imagine that if I saw them face to face I would like to help them. But remember, they jumped to line to get ahead of everybody else that obeyed the law and applied legally. If you ever waited for the bus for a long period of time in bad weather, you would not let anybody else get ahead of you. too. I would direct law enforcement at the businesses, not the illegals, to remove the incentive to employ them. If you want to liberalize the immigration rules as much as possible, I don’t mind.

Nevertheless, there are economic limits on what we can do. Perhaps, we should direct our compassion in more practical directions: getting countries they come from to improve their medical facilities. You see a homeless person, how much as an individual can do?

We have a lifeboat. There are only so many people that can get on the lifeboat before it sinks and everone drowns because the good intention is to save everybody. Grady Hospital is that lifeboat. It would be wonderful if everybody could be saved but the reality that hospital will sink and become bankrupt. The hospital may have a “tough policy” but if they run out of money, the hospital will close, and then everybody will suffer because of the good intentions.

Perhaps, you can volunteer to hold a bedpan to help cover the expenses. As president Obama says, “I don’t mind paying more to help people out.” But why is it our moral responsility intead of the country of origin?

Fallacy of the loaded question. I already rebutted the call to repeal the 14th amendment without needing to go there. No one assumed that those who repealed the 18th amendment hated the Constitution, and the power to amend or repeal is itself part of the Constitution. After all, it was by this process that the 14th amendment got there in the first place.

I could easily say to those who take a low view of the 2nd amendment, or the 10th amendment, “Why do you hate the Constitution?” I’d much rather say: If the 2nd or 10th amendment is inconvenient for you, go ahead and try to repeal them; good luck with that. Until then, they’re there, and you have to live with them.

Or, if it’s a mere disagreement over the interpretation of the amendments in question, I’d attempt to persuade as to why such and such an interpretation is wrong.

But to presume that someone “hates” the Constitution and then ask them to defend their hatred, is no different than asking, “When did you stop beating your wife?”

Quite possible that the author of the citizenship clause made the statement he did in order to reassure the rest of the Congress as to what was meant, or possibly to reassure the states that may have been in doubt about ratifying it — or even just to clarify its meaning for those who thought the language was ambiguous.

Citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was primarily intended to grant citizenship rights to former slaves. The question of its application to foreigners was decided by the Court later — and the question of its application to the children of illegals has still not been ruled on.

At the end of the day, I’m an originalist, so when in doubt I go by the stated intention of the person who actually wrote the thing.