we are just confabulating at this point. perhaps invading argument is not the analogy they’d use. a relatively optimistic outcome would include asylum-seekers inside of US jurisdiction, because they have announced and regularized themselves. 1/

the point is, there is wiggle room. the Constitution includes a hint enough of textual ambiguity, and US practice has hung at least one exception to plain birthright citizenship upon that. it’s enough that lawyers can lawyer about it. 2/

lawyers can be very clever and creative! 3/

and judges can be so creative as to enshrine the power of a king to stand above the law in a document born in the wake of a revolution against monarchy. just ask John Roberts! /fin