That's entirely correct. The practice of considering the children of illegals as citizens is just that, a practice. It has no formal basis in law other then an implicit allowance from the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898.
The government argued that Wong Kim Ark was not a citizen, even though he was born in the U.S.
By a 6-2 vote, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument.
The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualification (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes …
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 693.
This isn’t black letter law. It’s just an opinion.
And the above navel-gazing can be picked apart about a dozen different ways ...
but isn’t it the, mmmmm, Democrats who are always arguing, along with O.W. Holmes, that the Constitution is not “immutable and unchanging” but rather is “the skin of living thought”?
I think it’s long past time for the Court to correct its wool gathering error.
This country was never intended to be one big nest for the irresponsible cowbirds of the world, particularly the failed state to our immediate south—Mexico—currently swamping our country with its citizens, and with utter disdain for our black letter laws.
If we don’t fix it, we’re going to join Mexico as a failed state.