If you think the Court made a mistake in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in recognizing automatic birthright citizenship, then I'd encourage you to attempt to get the present court to overturn that 109 year old decision. Failing that, amend the United States Constitution.
Why amend the constitution when no one bothers with its spelled out limitations as it is? Why cannot I expect the constitution to be upheld as it is written now, as its history demands by those who framed it, and by two previous supreme court rulings that upheld the intent and words of the citizenship clause?
Quoting "Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law" such clear operation of the clause is well spelled out by the guy who wrote it:
"To make matters even worst for the court, Howard goes on to say in May of 1868 that the 'Constitution as now amended, forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents within the limits of the country.'"
Ok, so let me get this straight: you're conceding that US v. Wong Kim Ark found a constitutional basis for birthright citizenship (a point you had previously disputed, but which self evident from the text of the decision I quoted). Now your position is that the Supreme Court just got it wrong by misinterpreting the intent of the authors of the Amendment.
That's a totally reasonable position that we can argue -- all you need to do is find a court that agrees with your interpretation and agrees to overturn the supposedly erroneous 109-year old precedent created in Wong Kim Ark.