Many judges do it, that is true. To many, I suspect that it is because they enjoy the power of ruling. This further extends to many Obama-era judges who have been issuing nationwide injunctions even though they are district judges. This is a gross usurpation of the power of the higher courts and in my opinion should automatically qualify them for impeachment and removal from office.

All Obama judges do that.

High time that Barr de-fangs them.

Because the judge erroneously ignores that one of the very first things which MUST take place when a lawsuit is filed is to ascertain that the plaintiff has standing to bring that particular suit against a particular defendant in that particular court - three qualifications of which at least two (suit and jurisdiction) are prima faciae unsatisfied.

"A judge properly applying this understanding would rule that if you are not a citizen of the United States, you can not file a lawsuit claiming Constitutional protections because you have no standing. "

Good to know this.

I recall instances when illegal immigrants filed lawsuits, although I have no knowledge of the outcome.

How is it possible for them to do so?

So I think we need to be very careful about the terminology. The Constitution recognizes that rights exist independent of government. So every person on the planet has certain "inalienable" rights. I think we both agree on that. The question is whether or not the government is obligated to protect those rights when the subject is not a citizen of the United States. Note that most of the Amendments to the Constitution prohibit government infringement upon those natural rights but the legal jurisdiction of the Constitution itself only applies to citizens of the United States of America - those who owe their primary allegiance to this nation. It is an improper usurpation of the police and legislative powers of other nations to presume that the Constitution holds jurisdiction over aliens - illegal or otherwise. Of particular note is that it is not US law per se but rather treaties which dictate how US law is applied to aliens. Thus if you are not a citizen of the United States, you fall outside the jurisdiction and protections of the Constitution. A judge properly applying this understanding would rule that if you are not a citizen of the United States, you can not file a lawsuit claiming Constitutional protections because you have no standing. It would not be a matter of Constitutional law, but rather would boil down to the protections afforded based on the treaties between the US and the native country.

Well, I'm a programmer, not a lawyer. I'm not sure that would be a precedent setting opinion on citizenship. I would note that the 14th amendment uses the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" when speaking of citizenship and "within its jurisdiction" when speaking of equal rights.

There seems to be no disagreement that the children of foreign diplomats do not become citizens, however they do have the same constitutional rights as anyone else within the country.

Plyler vs Doe may apply. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...

I don't think there is any Supreme Court rulings on this subject other than United States v. Wong Kim Ark which established that children born of legal residents were "subject to the jurisdiction of". Even then part of the argument is that they were ineligible for naturalization because of race.

As far as I know the court has not dealt with children of mothers here illegally.

Don't even go there! My grandmother, an American Indian born in Paint Rock, Texas, was not allowed citizenship until after my father (her 4th child) was born in 1914! I resent 'Anchor Babies". I do not recognize them! If both your parents were not born in this country, you cannot be a citizen as far as I am concerned. I'm sorry, this topic raises my blood pressure! My first American ancestor was born in Massachusetts in 1625! My family has been in Texas since 1834. We still hold our land granted to us from Mexico.

I'd actually argue that we have allowed the Supreme Court to usurp what according to Article I of the Constitution is the SOLE job of the Legislative Branch. And because it suited the Democrats' open-borders policies (immigrants tend to vote for Democrats because of their support for handouts), they have been resisting any changes to it since Reagan.

We have obsolete laws on the books.

Times have changed and naturalization laws must be tailored to reflect that.

Because the US was always considered a State of immigrants.

Times have changed and the law should be tailored to the different conditions.

Correct. No other first world nation has an immigration or naturalization policy as loose as ours.

Generally speaking we are an outlier in developed countries. The international trend in recent years has been to tighten the requirements for citizenship rather than loosen them.

Watching with interest how this will play out.