Birthright Citizenship Challenge

[Rightguide]

Though someone crossing the border into a country without the proper paperwork may be expelled by that country's government for doing so, they are still "subject to the jurisdiction of" that country. The reason a diplomat cannot be thrown in jail is that, for example, an ambassador is not "subject to the jurisdiction of" the country they have been sent to. An illegal border-crosser does not have diplomatic privileges, otherwise the police could not touch them!

They are subject to the jurisdiction of the country in which they are citizens, yes.

 

[RobDownSouth]

As I pointed out, his parents were not illegal aliens, so they were subject to the jurisdiction of US law. That's where you're getting it wrong. It had nothing to do with race or their country of origin.

As I pointed out previously, legal status is not considered with regard to birthright citizenship. Any woman who gives birth on US soil (with the exceptions I listed earlier) are giving birth to United States Citizens. Period. End of Story. (I believe your side calls them 'anchor babies').

The whole purpose of this amendment to the second biggest mistake in Supreme Court history, Dred Scot, which effectively terminated citizenship rights for blacks, denying them due process. After the treasonous Conderacy collapsed, white supremacists continued to work within the law to deprive non-whites of citizenship. The 14th amendment put an end to this chicanery.

So, naturally, Mr. Trump wants to negate this amendment. Not happening.

 

[RobDownSouth]

They are subject to the jurisdiction of the country in which they are citizens, yes.

You're twisting the argument. A Somalian cannot come to the united states, boink a pre-teen and claim he is not subject to Murican law because he's a citizen of Somalia and its legal iover there. He is subject to the jurisdiction of whatever state he is present in.

 

[Rightguide]

You're twisting the argument. A Somalian cannot come to the united states, boink a pre-teen and claim he is not subject to Murican law because he's a citizen of Somalia and its legal iover there. He is subject to the jurisdiction of whatever state he is present in.

The 14th has to be understood and applied within the framework of its historical context and meaning at the time of ratification as well as the historical jurisprudence.

The Court specifically noted that Wong’s parents were lawfully in the U.S. and had the right to remain in the country, which placed them under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws. Wong himself was born on U.S. soil, and the Court held that he was entitled to citizenship because he was born under U.S. jurisdiction.

This is why it matters in the present sense:

The distinction between Wong’s parents and "illegal aliens" is crucial. Wong's parents were legal residents, and the Court’s ruling was based on the premise that individuals lawfully in the country were subject to the laws of the U.S., and therefore their children were entitled to birthright citizenship. This case did not address the status of individuals who are in the U.S. unlawfully (as illegal aliens).

If the parents had been undocumented or in the U.S. illegally, the situation might have been different because they would not be fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the same way as lawfully present residents. The jurisdictional argument in Wong Kim Ark was centered on the fact that the parents, despite their foreign citizenship, were living legally in the U.S., making their children subject to U.S. law.

Would the court rule differently in the present political environment in the case of illegal aliens and there children? It’s speculative, but likely, yes. If Wong’s parents had been illegal aliens—not legally residing in the country, the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause might have been interpreted differently. Children born to foreign nationals unlawfully present in the U.S. (as is the case with undocumented immigrants today) may not be seen as fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction in the same way as those born to legal residents.

 

[ll74]

The 14th has to be understood and applied within the framework of its historical context and meaning at the time of ratification as well as the historical jurisprudence.

The Court specifically noted that Wong’s parents were lawfully in the U.S. and had the right to remain in the country, which placed them under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws. Wong himself was born on U.S. soil, and the Court held that he was entitled to citizenship because he was born under U.S. jurisdiction.

This is why it matters in the present sense:

The distinction between Wong’s parents and "illegal aliens" is crucial. Wong's parents were legal residents, and the Court’s ruling was based on the premise that individuals lawfully in the country were subject to the laws of the U.S., and therefore their children were entitled to birthright citizenship. This case did not address the status of individuals who are in the U.S. unlawfully (as illegal aliens).

If the parents had been undocumented or in the U.S. illegally, the situation might have been different because they would not be fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the same way as lawfully present residents. The jurisdictional argument in Wong Kim Ark was centered on the fact that the parents, despite their foreign citizenship, were living legally in the U.S., making their children subject to U.S. law.

Would the court rule differently in the present political environment in the case of illegal aliens and there children? It’s speculative, but likely, yes. If Wong’s parents had been illegal aliens—not legally residing in the country, the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause might have been interpreted differently. Children born to foreign nationals unlawfully present in the U.S. (as is the case with undocumented immigrants today) may not be seen as fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction in the same way as those born to legal residents.

YOur argument is shit.
Birthright citizenship won't be overturned.

 

[HisArpy]

So tell us all what "falsehoods" you've seen uttered or printed?

There are things called differences of opinion. These things aren't "lies" per se. The lies are things which are created out of whole cloth.

Russian collusion for example. This was a political narrative created from the Steele Dossier which was a fabrication created at the directive of Hillary Clinton.

The lie that Covid came from the Wu Han wet market rather than a lab leak is another.

These are obvious lies which shouldn't need to be pointed out to anyone over the age of 15.

Is it not true that, aside from very narrow exceptions, anyone standing in the territory of a nation is "subject to the jurisdiction of" that nation? The exceptions are people such as diplomats or occupying military personnel (For example, Russian soldiers now in the Crimea aren't "subject to the jurisdiction of" the government of Ukraine). But if you are standing in, say, Montana, and decide to run across the border to Canada, even without passing through a proper border post, you will still be "under the jurisdiction of" the government of Canada.

Not necessarily. As I said, the law isn't simple. There are many things which most people don't understand about the law and that's why there are lawyers.

As to jurisdiction; there are laws which strip jurisdiction from the courts. Sovereign immunity for example. Under that concept a plaintiff cannot sue the government unless the Government allows it. The government doesn't always do that. This creates a situation where there's no jurisdiction for the court.

Habeas Corpus is another example. In some instances the right to Habeas Corpus is denied. This is why Gitmo was used for "enemy combatants" and "terrorists" because it prevented them from filing a writ to get out of the military prison and be brought into the US where other rights would attach (such as the ability to claim asylum).

Then there's the fact that jurisdiction can be limited to only certain courts. For instance; Federal Contractors who have a beef with the government regarding their contracts can only file in the US Court of Claims and not the Federal Courts. Jurisdiction is denied to the Federal Courts for these matters.

Nor can States sue each other in Federal Court. The sole court with jurisdiction to hear matters between States is the SCOTUS.

Is it not true that the 14th Amendment to the USA's Constitution reads, in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"?

And? The issue is the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." If you have precedent showing that those words means everyone within the physical boundaries of the US or its territories, bring it out and trot it around under the lights. Otherwise what you have is an incomplete understanding and are parroting the talking points of others who are manipulating you by limiting what you're told.

Basically, you're being played. And you seem to be liking it.

 

[Hel_Books]

They are subject to the jurisdiction of the country in which they are citizens, yes.

A person in the territory of a country is, with very narrow exceptions, "subject to the jurisdiction of" that country. The exceptions are such persons as diplomats (the French ambassador to Germany is not "subject to the jurisdiction of" Germany) or soldiers of an army (the Russian troops occupying eastern Ukraine are not "subject to the jurisdiction of" the Ukrainian government).

Other than those narrow exceptions, a person who is on the territory of a country of which they are not a citizen is "subject to the jurisdiction of" that country, even if they entered the country at some point other than an authorized port of entry.

 

[Hel_Books]

And? The issue is the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." If you have precedent showing that those words means everyone within the physical boundaries of the US or its territories, bring it out and trot it around under the lights. Otherwise what you have is an incomplete understanding and are parroting the talking points of others who are manipulating you by limiting what you're told.

Basically, you're being played. And you seem to be liking it.

It's not just in the USA, but in ALL nations that "subject to the jurisdiction of" indicates all persons on the territory of that nation (with the very narrow exceptions described above). If you want precedents, just look at the number of people arrested and charged with crimes in the USA who weren't citizens (many) and the number who successfully claimed that they weren't "subject to the jurisdiction of" the USA government because they were illegal aliens (zero).

Or you can look at the Wong Kim Ark case, in which the minority argued against giving citizenship to "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country" but the majority ruled the other way.

It seems you simply do not like it that your country is one of several dozen in the world that goes by "jus soli" rather than "jus sanguinis" or variants of those rules.

 

[HisArpy]

It's not just in the USA, but in ALL nations that "subject to the jurisdiction of" indicates all persons on the territory of that nation (with the very narrow exceptions described above). If you want precedents, just look at the number of people arrested and charged with crimes in the USA who weren't citizens (many) and the number who successfully claimed that they weren't "subject to the jurisdiction of" the USA government because they were illegal aliens (zero).

Or you can look at the Wong Kim Ark case, in which the minority argued against giving citizenship to "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country" but the majority ruled the other way.

It seems you simply do not like it that your country is one of several dozen in the world that goes by "jus soli" rather than "jus sanguinis" or variants of those rules.

Again for those slow on the uptake, this is an OPINION and not the law. Nor does Wong Kim Ark stand for the proposition you think it does. In that case the parents were LEGAL green card holders not "foreigners passing through the country."

At this point we don't know what the law "is" because it hasn't been determined yet. You have your OPINION and I have mine. The difference is that mine is based on reality, precedent, and an understanding of the law and how it works. You, not so much on any of that.

 

[Hel_Books]

Again for those slow on the uptake, this is an OPINION and not the law. Nor does Wong Kim Ark stand for the proposition you think it does. In that case the parents were LEGAL green card holders not "foreigners passing through the country."

At this point we don't know what the law "is" because it hasn't been determined yet. You have your OPINION and I have mine. The difference is that mine is based on reality, precedent, and an understanding of the law and how it works. You, not so much on any of that.

Court rulings are called "opinions," but because they are made by COURTS they carry a legal authority that opinions spouted in online forums do not.

As for Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court majority was clear, when they rejected the minority's argument about "foreigners passing through the country." They held that foreigners on the territory of the country were "subject to the jurisdiction of" the country (with, again, the narrow exceptions mentioned above).

So we do, in fact, know what the law in the USA is.

 

[HisArpy]

Court rulings are called "opinions," but because they are made by COURTS they carry a legal authority that opinions spouted in online forums do not.

As for Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court majority was clear, when they rejected the minority's argument about "foreigners passing through the country." They held that foreigners on the territory of the country were "subject to the jurisdiction of" the country (with, again, the narrow exceptions mentioned above).

So we do, in fact, know what the law in the USA is.

PERSONAL opinions aren't court rulings.

Get a fucking grip dudly, you lost this debate because you tried to use your beliefs as if they were the law.

 

[Hel_Books]

PERSONAL opinions aren't court rulings.

Get a fucking grip dudly, you lost this debate because you tried to use your beliefs as if they were the law.

I gave you the Supreme Court's opinion, not my own personal opinion. You're free to argue that the Supreme Court was wrong, or even argue that the 14th Amendment should never have been passed in the first place, but you can't say the Supreme Court majority did not make the decision, or that the 14th Amendment was never passed!

 

[HisArpy]

I gave you the Supreme Court's opinion, not my own personal opinion. You're free to argue that the Supreme Court was wrong, or even argue that the 14th Amendment should never have been passed in the first place, but you can't say the Supreme Court majority did not make the decision, or that the 14th Amendment was never passed!

You gave your OPINION on what the case decided, not what it ACTUALLY said.

The parties in Wong Kim Ark were here LEGALLY. That's a bit different from those here ILLEGALLY and dropping an anchor baby.

Until you figure that out, all you have is spew.

 

[Hel_Books]

You gave your OPINION on what the case decided, not what it ACTUALLY said.

The parties in Wong Kim Ark were here LEGALLY. That's a bit different from those here ILLEGALLY and dropping an anchor baby.

Until you figure that out, all you have is spew.

In my earlier post, I wrote:

Or you can look at the Wong Kim Ark case, in which the minority argued against giving citizenship to "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country" but the majority ruled the other way.

This is not "my opinion," this is straight from the opinion of your Supreme Court. You may think the decision they reached was wrong and should be overturned, but you cannot argue that the decision wasn't made!

 

[HisArpy]

In my earlier post, I wrote:

Or you can look at the Wong Kim Ark case, in which the minority argued against giving citizenship to "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country" but the majority ruled the other way.

This is not "my opinion," this is straight from the opinion of your Supreme Court. You may think the decision they reached was wrong and should be overturned, but you cannot argue that the decision wasn't made!

You're not giving a FACTUAL description of the decision. You're omitting RELEVANT FACTS in your attempt to SPIN it to say something it does not.

Good try though.

 

[Hel_Books]

You're not giving a FACTUAL description of the decision. You're omitting RELEVANT FACTS in your attempt to SPIN it to say something it does not.

Good try though.

In my earlier post, I wrote:

Or you can look at the Wong Kim Ark case, in which the minority argued against giving citizenship to "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country" but the majority ruled the other way.

This is the relevant fact. If you have any facts to back up your position, feel free to present them.

 

[HisArpy]

In my earlier post, I wrote:

Or you can look at the Wong Kim Ark case, in which the minority argued against giving citizenship to "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country" but the majority ruled the other way.

This is the relevant fact. If you have any facts to back up your position, feel free to present them.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a landmark decision[2] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

So they weren't "just passing through," they were LEGALLY HERE and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Which TOTALLY defeats your entire talking point since you LEFT THAT OUT.

Here's a question only you have an answer for: Why is it that you insist on saying things that are only partially true instead of speaking the WHOLE truth? Is it because you prefer to tailor reality to your beliefs or are you just too dam stupid to understand that other people can see straight through your omissions and lies?

 

[schism666]

created at the directive of Hillary Clinton.

there's proof of this? otherwise, it's one of those pesky lies that you claim to hate so much.

derp.

 

[Hel_Books]

So they weren't "just passing through," they were LEGALLY HERE and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Which TOTALLY defeats your entire talking point since you LEFT THAT OUT.

Here's a question only you have an answer for: Why is it that you insist on saying things that are only partially true instead of speaking the WHOLE truth? Is it because you prefer to tailor reality to your beliefs or are you just too dam stupid to understand that other people can see straight through your omissions and lies?

The majority did acknowledge that they were legally in the USA. The minority, in their argument, brought up the question of children of people who were "just passing through" the USA. The majority said that those children would also be citizens.

Here is a quote from the minority opinion:

"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that 'naturalborn citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, . . ."

Here is a quote from the opinion of the majority:

"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king."

 

[HisArpy]

The majority did acknowledge that they were legally in the USA. The minority, in their argument, brought up the question of children of people who were "just passing through" the USA. The majority said that those children would also be citizens.

Here is a quote from the minority opinion:

"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that 'naturalborn citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, . . ."

Here is a quote from the opinion of the majority:

"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king."

So, if the majority decision covers LEGAL residents, then how the fuck do you extend that to ILLEGAL aliens?

Basically you're hoping to stretch a decision and twist it into what you want to believe rather than accepting that the decision doesn't say what you wish it said.

 

[Hel_Books]

So, if the majority decision covers LEGAL residents, then how the fuck do you extend that to ILLEGAL aliens?

Basically you're hoping to stretch a decision and twist it into what you want to believe rather than accepting that the decision doesn't say what you wish it said.

Read it again, carefully this time. Notice that the minority brings up the case of people just passing through, and the majority responds that English Common Law covers anyone "so long as they were within the kingdom" with the exception of "children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions."

Here is a quote from the minority opinion:

"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that 'naturalborn citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, . . ."

Here is a quote from the opinion of the majority:

"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king."

 

[HisArpy]

Read it again, carefully this time. Notice that the minority brings up the case of people just passing through, and the majority responds that English Common Law covers anyone "so long as they were within the kingdom" with the exception of "children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions."

Here is a quote from the minority opinion:

"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that 'naturalborn citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, . . ."

Here is a quote from the opinion of the majority:

"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king."

You keep citing to the minority opinion without understanding that the MAJORITY decision doesn't say what you want it to say. Namely that the children of LAWFUL resident foreigners are US citizens. That doesn't mean the children of unlawful residents are included in the word LAWFUL.

 

[Hel_Books]

You keep citing to the minority opinion without understanding that the MAJORITY decision doesn't say what you want it to say. Namely that the children of LAWFUL resident foreigners are US citizens. That doesn't mean the children of unlawful residents are included in the word LAWFUL.

The case was the case of Wong Kim Ark, whose parents were legal residents. But the decision also discussed the situation of any and all people "so long as they were within the kingdom" (from the English Common Law) because the minority mentioned children "happening to be born to them while passing through the country."

Here it is again:

Here is a quote from the minority opinion:

"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that 'naturalborn citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, . . ."

Here is a quote from the opinion of the majority:

"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king."

 

[butters]

As I pointed out previously, legal status is not considered with regard to birthright citizenship. Any woman who gives birth on US soil (with the exceptions I listed earlier) are giving birth to United States Citizens. Period. End of Story. (I believe your side calls them 'anchor babies').

The whole purpose of this amendment to the second biggest mistake in Supreme Court history, Dred Scot, which effectively terminated citizenship rights for blacks, denying them due process. After the treasonous Conderacy collapsed, white supremacists continued to work within the law to deprive non-whites of citizenship. The 14th amendment put an end to this chicanery.

So, naturally, Mr. Trump wants to negate this amendment. Not happening.

learn something new every day... when I saw the Dred Scott/Supreme Court lines in your post it had me wondering about the fictional character:

​

The Dred Scott Supreme Court decision is significant as it ruled that African Americans could not claim U.S. citizenship and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. This decision has historical relevance to the character of Judge Dread, as it reflects the societal attitudes towards race and citizenship during that time. While the decision does not directly mention Judge Dread, its implications on the legal and social landscape of the time would likely influence the character's portrayal and actions in a fictional narrative245.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You keep citing to the minority opinion without understanding that the MAJORITY decision doesn't say what you want it to say. Namely that the children of LAWFUL resident foreigners are US citizens. That doesn't mean the children of unlawful residents are included in the word LAWFUL.

The word LAWFUL does not appear as a qualifier in the majority opinion. You inserted it there to justify your position.