[nicmarlo]

We cannot change this without changing the law and overturning a 100 years of legal precedents.

Or, quite simply, SCOTUS can rule that previous laws were not, in fact, in line with the Constitutional intent and overturn said laws that have allowed the children of illegal aliens benefits designated for American citizens. This type of correction of wrong/immoral interpretationwas done by SCOTUS in more cases than just Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, which was overturned almost 60 years later by SCOTUS in Brown v. Board of Education347 U.S. 483 (1954).

[kabar]

Or, quite simply, SCOTUS can rule that previous laws were not, in fact, in line with the Constitutional intent and overturn said laws that have allowed the children of illegal aliens benefits designated for American citizens. This type of correction of wrong/immoral interpretationwas done by SCOTUS in more cases than just Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, which was overturned almost 60 years later by SCOTUS in Brown v. Board of Education347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Or a future SCOTUS could overturn rulings made today, which is why I favor a constitutional amendment, when it comes to defining who a citizen is. The Constitutional amendment process requires state and congressional approval. Better that than to depend on the whims of five non-elected judges.