As to the footnote itself, it has no legal significance. The state court (not the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) was looking for a coinage convention for its decision and explained, reasonably enough it seems in this context, that it would use “illegal aliens” as a descriptor in a case questioning whether resident illegal aliens were entitled to in-state tuition in California. One can use any number of descriptors as long as one does so consistently. I tend to favor “uninspected entrant” (which is the violation for sneaking across) for people who cross the border without going through required border checks and “illegal aliens” for those who overstay visas (or who otherwise enter legally, but then go out of status). The latter term is big enough to sweep in anyone who is here who shouldn’t be, but so is undocumented worker and any number of other terms. But I’m not sure it matters as long as we all know what we are talking about.

I would think anyone who reads court opinions with any frequency would wonder why this is significant.

We don’t need Liberal Newspeak to know what is going on.

This investigation should happen! Now what about NCLR? They receive plenty of OUR tax money….and I believe they use it in their efforts to counter our efforts to stop amnesty and pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. NCLR must be investigated too! Someone in the mainstream media needs to break this wide open.