[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Have you read the decision? Seriously?

[astyanax]

Yes, the majority ruling leaves the premise extremely wide open, but the fact remains that there has not been a specific ruling on this (yet, although I feel it’s inevitable.)
However, there is certainly no denying the intent of the law.
There is also no reason why Congress couldn’t close this loophole nor is there any reason it would require “changing the Constitution”.

[astyanax]

One more point. It all comes down to original intent.

Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."

It was in 1898 (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens. While the decision could be (and is often) read more broadly, the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents.

Now, if you want to go along with the opinion of a couple of judges "interpreting" the law over the intent of the actual framers of the law, then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.