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.
This is actually a salient point. It is unquestionable that Indians were excluded from citizenship until 1924. Most Mexican and Central and South American immigrants are actually Indians, in the meaning of the term as understood in 1868.
This demonstrates precedence in their exclusion prior to 1924, and that was only changed through an act of congress. Presumably what congress changed one way, it can change back.
Congress would never touch this for that reason because it has become too politically correct to even entertain the idea, but legally, they could.
Just classify illegals as "Indians", amend the Indian Citizenship act of 1924 to only apply to tribes recognized to be in our borders, and voila! Problem solved.
(Yes, I'm joking.)