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.