Yes, the solicitor General IMO really flubbed the case. Its all about the meaning of jurisdiction. Not domicile.
I’m expecting the court to side step the issue completely and just rule that the President does not have the constitutional authority to waive birthright citizenship. They’ll throw it on Congress.
I agree. Or at least, I hope that's what they'll do. Because if they rule that the President does not have the authority, they have no reason to reach the issue of whether Congress does because that issue wasn't raised. So they can -- and in theory should - not even address the issue of whether Congress could change it by statute.
But I think what we may see is some concurrences suggesting that Congress can. It would be non-binding dicta, but at least it would keep hope alive to end birthright citizenship by statute.
I think it is a bit dicey and results-oriented, but I'd prefer to see it punted to Congress. I personally think the language is unfortunately clear, but I'm also not comfortable with establishing a Constitutional-level right to citizenship that was not contemplated at all at the time the Amendment was passed.
I liked the explanation offered by a Freeper several days ago.
The crux of the matter is the tense of the words “born” and “naturalized”.
The slaves brought to the colonies in chains were never citizens
of the US and so their children were similarly stateless. Neither
parents nor children were ever citizens of the United States in
1865. With the end of the Civil War, Congress had to create a legal
bridge to citizenship that first allowed former slaves and their
children to become “naturalized”. Generations to follow would
then become “natural born” citizens. So the tense of the Amendment
is important; those (already) born or naturalized (in the past)
and subject to the jurisdictions thereof were henceforth citizens.
This was clearly a reference to the former slaves and their children.
Just my 2 cents...