This is the last statement of the conclusion. What they're basically saying is that for illegals who come over just to give birth, get a bc and then go back to Mexico...no citizenship should or need be granted. But any other category of immigrant...including illegals who managed to rent an apt or trailer or a tent in a vacant lot, would have established a domicile and their offspring would then be eligible for citizenship.
That's not nearly broad enough for me, but I would accept it as a first step.
I am not at all convinced that domicile is a deciding factor.
The American Indians were long domiciled, yet what prevented them from coming under the 14th was the fact that they refused to be under the jurisdiction of the US.
A illegal border crosser has violated that jurisdiction and should be automatically excluded. Secondly, since the mother is to be excluded, and the child certainly has no ability to express a desire to remain under the jurisdiction of the US, the child therefore is a citizen of the Mother's home country and not a citizen of the US.
This entire anchor baby nonsense is a liberal touchy feely interpretation that even fails to distinguish the original intent of the 14th, much less interpret it correctly.