And it's even conservative originalists like John Yoo and James Ho saying that there is no chance this is constitutional (latter at least back in 2006, now having to revert to the ludicrous "invasion" argument.
And it's even conservative originalists like John Yoo and James Ho saying that there is no chance this is constitutional (latter at least back in 2006, now having to revert to the ludicrous "invasion" argument.
Let's wait and see if the 9 on the SCOTUS believe that the arguments against birthright citizenship for children born in the US to illegal aliens is based on "ignorance" or is "ludicrous." Until then, it's an open constitutional question that has been debated by academics ever since Wong Kim Ark.
In the most pure legal realist way, sure, there's a chance the Supreme Court goes mask off and removes birthright citizenship, but pretending that there's anything inherently constitutional about that is crazy Question: do you think that birthright citizenship should be the law of the land?
As a policy matter, I don't believe that children born in the US to illegal aliens should be entitled to citizenship. But I fully grasp the super-majority, passionate, view that the Citizenship Clause guarantees citizenship to the child. However, the SCOTUS has never definitively resolved the issue.
The individual rights of the infant outweigh the personal preferences of the executive branch.
I would not call the central debate ludicrous. Not by a long shot. I would only call Ho's recent invasion argument that bc there is no plausible argument that the children of occupying aliens exception applies.
What makes you think the opinion will give you any insight into what the justices actually think about the ludicrousness of the arguments? As Akiva has already accurately pointed out, some of them are operating completely unbound by adherence to the law.
Alito signing on to an argument because it achieves his preferred policy goal doesn't mean he doesn't think it's a ludicrous legal argument.