I think you're wrong. And I an article that says we were denying citizenship to any "illegal" babies before 1965 is also wrong. I dare anyone to find a pre 1965 example of anyone who could prove they were born in the US being denied citizenship because their parents were "illegal."
I beg to differ. It's obvious that you know very little of the history, intent and unintended consequences of the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. A law pushed by the Kennedy's, passed by Democrats and signed by Lyndon Johnson as part of the "Great Society". Prior to that law, just because a foreign nationals child was born in the US, it did not automatically assure US citizenship. There were legal entry and residency requirements (jurisdiction?) that, if not met, could cause the child to be considered the nationality of the parents. Your interpretation of the 14th. Amendment, that was meant to make citizens of Southern Negro slaves and Mexicans born in what became US territory or a state, such as California, was not intended, nor was it interpreted until the last 40 years, to confer automatic, undisputable citizenship upon birth.
You may think it so, you may wish it so, but it is not the tradition. It is a corruption of the 1965 Immigration act that has led to this notion. What you are arguing for is a cynical and self serving interpretation of the citizenship clause that was not intended at the time for the contemporary context that is at issue. Do you really think that Congress would have passed this act had it known that wealthy Korean and Taiwanese businessmen and professionals would fly their pregnant wives to the USA, put them up in hotels close to hospitals so that their children would be born on "US Soil" and then fly them back to Korea or Taiwan to be used as "tickets out" in case the communists invaded their countries? I don't think so. Were I a member of the Korean or Taiwan legislatures, I would consider laws that denied the recognition of any such citizenship by manipulation.
You may think you know whereof you speak, but the more you say, the more I know you either don't know, or don't want to admit. The '65 I&N Act needs to be revisited by congress and the legal entry and residency laws restored to the pre-1965 requirements.
I dare anyone to find a pre 1965 example of anyone who could prove they were born in the US being denied citizenship because their parents were "illegal."
"Illegal" immigration was extremely rare prior to 1965. People here illegally were deported along with their children. Their child may have been considered to be a US citizen, but that fact, if so, did not provide an "anchor" for the parents to stay in the US. All were deported. Most Mexicans wanted their kids with them and raised in Mexico. If they wanted their US citizen kids to be raised in the US, they sent them to a family member that was a US citizen. Now, these "anchor babies" are used to enable mama, papa, abuelita e abuelito (that's grandma and grandpa in español), to reside in the US, partly or wholly, at the taxpayers expense. You may argue that the former is more cruel than the latter, but considering the impact of excessive crowding and the reduction in quality of US schools, is it really?
And that is eventually the point of permitting "illegal" immigration. Is it moral?