Really? Roe v. Wade. Was that "settled law"?

Not really. In fact, while albaby explained the basis for Roe, and I understood it, I always thought it was a little weak. I still think grounding it in the 13th is a better approach.

I get that you guys want to wave your hands and declare this a nonissue, but that's not going to work.

I would argue your syntax. It is an issue (illegal immigration). But birthright citizenship isn't. That has been settled for nearly 160 years, and albaby gave the best reason I've ever read.

But the mechanics of all this can be very complicated, and there likely are novel situations that will arise that need to be adjudicated. Just as a "for example":

Some non-seekers of asylum sneak across the border, and end up having a baby here. They are caught. They are clearly deportable. But is the baby? I have my own opinion how this should be handled, but maybe the law wouldn't allow it (I don't know). Stuff like that would be an issue, and would likely need the courts to decide.

But if you are born here under the jurisdiction of the US, then you are a citizen, and the government can't decide you aren't. You don't want the government to have that kind of power. Very few people would want that.