The Left couched their argument under the convoluted definition of terms that ‘jurisdiction’ effectively meant ‘location’ — and nothing more.
Example (I think this was Justice Jackson’s story to lead the ACLU witness down the garden path): you’re vacationing in Japan and steal somebody’s wallet. Because you are in Japan, you are subject to Japan’s laws and they can therefore arrest and prosecute you under their laws and legal authority.
My counter-argument: of course you have to obey Japanese laws while visiting... but at the same time, you are NOT ‘living’ in Japan (i.e., you are not *domiciled* there). You aren’t paying Japanese income taxes, your mail isn’t delivered there, and your allegiance is still given to your home country.
The Solicitor General came up with the ‘domicile’ argument to allow the court to (a) accept his view of the 14th amendment while (b) still remaining in harmony with their 1898 decision in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark... a Chinese person born in the US to _legal_ immigrant parents who HAD established their home in the US.
In other words, Wong was an ‘anchor baby’ with real ties to the US... neither a ‘birth tourist’ nor the child of an illegal alien. Therefore, this citizenship ruling was correct... and different from what Trump’s executive order refers to.
It wasn't just the left -- Trump is almost certainly going to lose at least Gorsuch on this as well. And it isn't just location and nothing more. The argument is that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is intended to exclude the children of ambassadors and others with diplomatic immunity who literally are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.. So it is location, plus jurisdiction.
Just on plain words alone, it's the most simple argument. Ask "is that person subject to U.S. jurisdiction"? If the answer is yes, and they reside in the U.S., they are citizen. Answering "no, that person is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S." means you could not arrest and prosecute them for crimes because you lack personal jurisdiction. For obvious reasons, the government doesn't want to make that argument.
So, the administration had to concede, "yes, illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States", while simultaneously arguing that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not include illegals.
It's a tricky argument to have to make.
So in this case, two Wongs quite literally don’t make a birthwight...