Comment: I understand your argument

And (as I mentioned elsewhere on here) I do see it as noble.

Lets take a hypothetical. Lets say that what you are advocating for is true.

That, the Constitution and Bill of Rights - as a declaration of and a blueprint for a government that protects those rights - applies to all 7 billion people on the planet, regardless of race creed, place of birth and nationality.

So (hypothetically):

A group of Chinese (or Spanish, or Canadian, or South Africans. Doesn't matter) can move here somewhere within the 50 states.

1st Amendment:

They can set up a TV station, that broadcasts documentaries, interviews, and propaganda 24 hours a day, 7 days a week calling for the dissolution of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and replacing the Republic with a National Socialist government with a Great Leader of their choosing.

And that is fine.

2nd Amendment:

They can walk into a gun show or a gun store, and buy as many weapons and as much ammunition as the want to, even as their station is broadcasting inflammatory statements - 24/7 - about the possible necessity of resorting to armed action against Americans who resist the coming order.

And that is fine.

4th Amendment:

They can arm their house to the teeth, keep all their plans to blow up targets all over the US in there. And nobody can search the house ... even when their TV station is broadcasting incitements to violent revolution and overturning our Republic (1st Amendment)

And that is their right. Nobody can fault them for it.

And so on and so on.

I understand why this is a contentious debate. It deserves to be.

Where do we draw the line around our borders. How do we reconcile

- "ALL men are created equal with natural rights"

with

- "There are SOME people who want to deny those rights to others - they would take them by force or by proxy"

And those people must be resisted - even when that means denying them the exercise of some of those rights within our borders, and simply deporting them.