Obviously the position isn't that foreigners are immune to the jurisdiction of American courts and that one's sole remedy against an illegal alien is to deport them, even if they're, e.g., a terrorist. So how does this work as a legal argument, as opposed to just something you want to happen REALLY REALLY BAD?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629457&forum_id=2#48305429)

I don’t know how the court would decide but I am confident that it didn’t decide this in Wong Kim Ark

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629457&forum_id=2#48305474)

(1) children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or

(2) born on foreign public ships, or

(3) of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and

(4) the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes

Because the term 'resident alien' included those categories, and those were merely an exception, the use of the term 'resident alien' to refer to 'legal permanent resident' status as it now exists would be a pretty fanciful extension of the concept. I suppose you could call it part of a hostile occupation, but I don't think even Thomas would go for that. Someone who gets an ITIN and re-shingles roofs for pay, subject to the effective jurisdiction of civilian courts, is clearly not a soldier of a foreign country occupying a part of the United States.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629457&forum_id=2#48305525)