I'd consider fair to be equal. If we are equating fair to good or right then let me know.

so by that definition its unfair to the citizens.

a rule is fairly applied to states, then by happenstance depending on what state you life in, its unfairly applied to citizens in states where there happen to be more illegals. especially because (in cali for example) you have almost no power to change anything, just move. u and your 1000 closest friends can all vote republican twice per election and you'll never see a republican representative.

we could spiral off into a fair vs equal debate, but thats been done in every college philosophy class forever. just as an example: if the govt is handing out insulin it needs to give an equal amount to both diabetics and nondiabetics.

he’s got low opinions of minorities. sad really

The rule being fairly applied to states is where it stops. The voters then have the opportunity to elect officials to enact policy that benefits them. If you want to talk about the fairness or equality of a democratic vote we can. Politicians not acting in the best interest of those they represent is something I would consider corruption.

Bolded: We could. I'd say in that example giving insulin to non-diabetics does not promote equality. The insulin is a tool to bring diabetics to equal footing with non-diabetics.

by this same logic we should give money to the poor and take it from the rich to force equality.

see, every thing is a slippery slope. fairness and equality are not the same. nor should anyone strive for just fairness nor just equality. a balanced mix of each is needed with nuance in all contexts.

so you think that Trump can now run for not just one but two extra terms?

No, but it's a fun thought isn't it.

what i find fun is the tens or even hundreds of thousands of people who read that narrative and thanked god for the messiah being in office for another 2 terms.