I predict the U.S. Supreme Court will treat this issue like they did when the Miranda warnings were challenged. The 5th Amendment, after all, merely prohibits any person in a criminal proceeding from being compelled to be a witness against himself. It does not require the arresting officer to read a certain formula to the perp word-for-word, on pain of dismissal of the case. If the suspect confesses to the crime, and there are sufficient indicia of voluntariness, he was no way compelled to speak, that should be sufficient.
But the Supreme Court, after asserting firmly that its constitutional rulings could not be legislatively overruled, preserved the Miranda warnings because by that time they were “part of our national culture” by which I reckon they meant we had all seen it on TV in hundreds of cop and detective shows.
Although as a principle of statutory construction they shouldnt and can’t just disregard the 14th Amendment’s words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (contrast the 5th Amendment, which does not contain that proviso) I think the Court will end up saying that okay, so the 14th doesn’t actually require the result that anybody can sneak in here and give birth to a citizen. But that’s what people have always thought, for over a century now, so…if you wanna change this aspect of our “national culture”, you’re gonna hafta amend the 14th Amendment.
If I were a Justice, I’d rule that children of people here in violation of our laws do NOT become citizens, but I reckon I’d make the ruling prospective, as courts often do when ruling on a matter of first impression. Or would that open the ruling up to a charge of “arbitrary discrimination” because there’s no basis for distinguishing between babies born before SCOTUS’ ruling and those born after? Welp—legislation is always a matter of drawing a line, and up against that line on either side, you get the “hard cases” which proverbially make bad law.