“If we’re going to change the principle that children born on American soil are entitled to American citizenship with very few exceptions (basically foreign diplomats and foreign military personnel sent here on official business by their governments), it would change American immigration law dating back at least to the late 1800s and probably earlier. It may require a change in the Constitution.”
The 14th Amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” An amendment intended to establish civil rights for slaves was perverted by the Supreme Court in Wong Ark into establishing jus soli in the U.S. so that cheap Chinese labor couldn’t be exported. A Constitutional change shouldn’t be necessary—but of course, you’re ultimately right that it is, if only because the SCOTUS has ignored the clear restricting language and history of the law.
You are, of course, correct about the history of the interpretation and application of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Here’s a link to the text of the Supreme Court decision (and the minority dissent) in the US v Wong Kim Ark case:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html
There’s no realistic way to change this 1898 decision apart from a constitutional amendment since the Supreme Court specifically declared that the Congress has no power to make laws (such as the Chinese Exclusion Act) which deny citizen status to people born on American soil whose parents are not here in an official capacity representing a foreign government.
Personally I think we’ve got worse problems to worry about than wealthy Chinese women coming to America to have “anchor babies,” but I know there will be some on Free Republic who place a much higher priority on immigration issues. That’s fine and I respect their choice of priorities. All of us can’t fight equally hard on all issues.