Did you even read the post to which I was responding?? It was citing to the Naturalization Act of of 1975, and the requirement to "renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince...." None of that is applicable to newborns.
If you look at Wong Kim Ark, here's the key language, and I'm bolding the relevant point: "The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution
This is why those who read "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as some kind of loyalty test where you can't hold any kind of allegiance to another sovereign are simply...wong. The Court clearly had zero issue with his parents being subjects of the Emperor of China, and that had no impact on Wong's right to birth citizenship. The only thing they noted relevant to China is that his parents "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China."
That last clause was squarely in the "diplomatic immunity" interpretation of the 14th, not the broad "loyalty" interpretation some here are advocating.
This language from Wong explains why the Solicitor General adopted the "domicile" argument. Wong kills the argument that there is no birthright citizenship if the parents are mere citizens of another country. So instead the SG focused on the Wong Court's use of "domicile", and tried to argue that you can't legally be "domiciled" in the country if you are here illegally.
I personally think that is the correct argument for him to have made. Although I think he should also have made the argument about the lack of immigration law at the time made it impossible for the 14th to affirmatively address the issue of citizenship for illegals, and that means the issue should be left to Congress.
That’s the Immigration Act of 1795, not 1975.
Did you read paragraphs 3 and 118 in Wong where the Supreme Court establishes its appellate scope? The Court must limit its ruling to the case before it, and that case was about the newborn of permanent resident aliens.
The Court defined the question it was asked to resolve in paragraph 3, and then ruled on it in paragraph 118 based on domicile, not loyalty. That's the scope of Wong, and everything else in between is non-binding dicta.
There is nothing that defines the citizenship of the children of nonimmigrants because Wong did not settle that.
The loyalty question is regarding naturalized citizens; the domicile question is regarding permanent resident aliens, as decided in Wong.
-PJ