If you can't or won't defend the arguments you have put forth, why put them forth at all?  Just say flatly that you believe what you believe regardless of the evidence, and then we don't have to waste all this time. 

Evidence? Beliefs? What the hell are you talking about? We were arguing about ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, and whether a Constitutional amendment would be necessary. Obviously, it would not because the Supreme Court has a precedent of interpreting the Constitution very loosely. Do you disagree with that? If so, the burden of evidence is on you. Beyond that point, the discussion just devolved into increasingly pedantic legal arguments that don't matter. If the political will is there, the legality will follow.

Seriously though, what are you talking about? We were never discussing personal beliefs or the evidence behind them. The reason I brought them up in the last post is because the legal arguments just boiled down to post hoc rationalizations for policies that we support. I wasn't trying to defend the position that illegal immigration is bad, of which there is plenty of evidence, but if that's something you want to argue, we can do that.

I will concede, for the sake of this argument, that a Supreme Court determined to find a legal space to exclude birthright citizenship might see fit to interpret that a law crafted before illegal immigration was even a factual possibility in fact was intended to ensure that the children of those then-impossible illegal immigrants did not become citizens. 

I will not concede that a a majority of persons who care enough about the law to be in a position to ascend to the Supreme Court would turn the basic legal concept of "jurisdiction" on its head as you are suggesting.  This is no pedantry.  This is not mere rationalization. 

As for what I was talking about, I was referring to the fact that you wanted to abandon the argument not simply due to fatigue, but because our positions were allegedly simply irreconcilable.  My position is that, even if our basic positions are truly irreconcilable, you have set forth arguments, or sub-positions, in support of your basic position that I think we are not beyond the realistic prospect of making progress on arguing.  If you weren't willing to support those arguments in the face of real criticism, just state your main position and be done with it instead of pretending that you are both able and willing to debate in support of them.  In our debate in the other thread, there was at least a little justification to your claim that I was nitpicking around the edges of your argument, but these are really crucial details we are talking about in this one. 

And for the record, according to what you have typed, you may be making assumptions about my own basic position that in fact are false in some cases. 
1.  Although I do want the children born in the USA to have citizenship regardless of their parentage, I do not think that the fact of having a child on our soil should improve the ability of parents who came here illegally to stay here. 
2.  I am not in favor of allowing illegal immigrants to stay except as regards the practicality of deporting the entire illegal population.  Proposed crackdowns must be applied consistently. 
3.  I do not "want" whites to be a minority.  (I'd like to point out, though, that I'm not aware of when or if this is expected to happen in the parts of the country that we didn't get from Mexico or Spain.  The border crossed them, in many cases, not the other way around.) 
4.  However, it would be fair to say that I against exclusionary immigration policy for the purpose of keeping a white majority, on the basis of believing that the country is just as capable of integrating "unacceptable" Mexicans and Muslims as it was capable of integrating "unacceptable" Irish Catholics, other Catholics, Jews, Slavs, etc. a century or two ago, and just as likely to benefit from it in the long term.  (And, if #4 leads to #3, I am willing to accept that consequence while nevertheless not positively desiring it.) 

As to your final suggestion, I don't think I want to expand the topic to illegal immigration in general at this time.  Not to say that I couldn't, but I do not wish to enter that additional topic in this thread at this time. 

Just as a reminder, this is the argument this whole debate revolves around:

(My argument:) Since illegal immigrants are in our country and (unlike, for instance, foreign diplomats) subject to our laws, they are ipso facto "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" and their children born here are therefore citizens.