I think the chances of anything like this actually happening without a broad bipartisan coalition are slim to none -- basically no one left or right questions that Wong Kim Ark was decided correctly. It might be a theoretically good issue to campaign on, though, since I think it would be sort of easy to demagogue about particular unpopular categories of birthright citizens (like the children of mothers participating in birth tourism), although this has become less of a problem since a 2020 statute. (Apparently, in the early 2010s, 70% of births in Saipan were to foreigners practicing birth tourism -- though there has been a crackdown since and this only added up to several hundred per year, which isn't exactly a flood. Of children with rich and Americophilic parents, so even if it were a flood it wouldn't exactly be the most threatening one ever.)
I think in theory Clarence Thomas might be a vote against it due to how idiosyncratic he is based on the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause but also that he'd probably take the same position he does on Social Security, he's stated that he believes SS might be fundamentally unconstitutional but also that overturning it now would have so much negative impact that it really can't happen so the solution is to just not hear any case challenging the constitutionality if it. But even if he didn't it'd be an 8-1 decision. Or more like a 7-1-1 decision with the very cranky concurrence from Alito.
