I agree with the phenomenon but dont thinnk that is the case here. I know lots of people that have no issue loudly oposing demograpic change that still stumble on the issue of how to read constitutional text.

▲

pfannkuchen 2 days ago | parent [-]

My point is that I don't think anyone would be focusing on this particular constitutional text if the underlying reason they are focused on it were allowed to be discussed in the open. It sounds like you don't disagree with that? Do you logically agree but you feel like it must be wrong somehow? Moral programming do be like that.

	▲	s1artibartfast 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I agree that people use convouted rationalizations to justify the outcomes they want when their actual preferences are taboo to state outright. I thought you were accusing the SCOTUS of doing that, which I disagreed with. I agree the public discussion is more charged and less coherent because some people are trying to project their taboo moral stances on to dry and boring question of textual interpretation. That said, I think this case isnt the best example. I think there are lots of people who question if children of tourists or illegal enterants of the US should be given automatic citizenship, even without buying into demographic preferences.