Replies

“This Court’s prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are ‘persons’ protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase ‘within its jurisdiction,’ cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase ‘within its jurisdiction’ confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. Pp. 210-216.

Yes, this seems to confirm that they(those born) are persons “WITHIN” the states jurisdiction” (emphases mine)

However, they seem to be conflating the word “WITHIN” (its jurisdiction) with the phrase (from the 14th amendment): and “SUBJECT” (to the jurisdiction, thereof).

It’s a subtle distinction.

For instance an embassy can be “within” the jurisdiction of a State, but technically it’s “subject” to the jurisdiction of it’s home country.

“The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deprive the children of illegal immigrants equal access to education, whether the children themselves are citizens or not.

Correct — as long as they are “within” the jurisdiction.

So you are correct(it would seem to me)when you say: “The decision — the only part of the opinions that provides binding precedent — does not address the question of children born here to illegal immigrants.”

So the solution is deport them (AB) back to their home country — that they are “subjects” of — so that they are no longer “within” the jurisdiction” of a (US)State.

It IS of interest that the court managed this decision WITHOUT addressing (some would say side stepping)the question of children born here to illegal immigrants.

This would seem to indicate that deportation of anchor babies are on the table.

PS: I am not saying that anchor babies should now be deported, but rather, maybe the law needs to be “revisited” so that the practice (of making anchor babies) my be illuminated in the future, and thus, dissuading “persons” from illegally immigrating to America.