Nonsense.
It's all about the illegal alien who gave birth. Even Wong was decided on the grounds of the parent, not the child.
It's all about the conditions that brought the parent to give birth here that determines jurisdiction.
-PJ
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.