The Congress does NOT have to amend the constitution. Congress only needs to redifine "Jurisdiction" to mean a child who is born to parents lawfully in the United States because defining jurisdiction is perfectly within Congress' constitutional rights.
See Below:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:jlnDNpFLQdMJ:commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43144.000/hju43144_0.HTM+%22define+Jurisdiction%22+%22birthright+citizenship%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8
CITIZENSHIP REFORM ACT OF 1997; AND VOTER ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION ACT
Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Watt.
Let me go to myself and direct my first question to Dr. Erler. Now, Dr. Erler, I found your testimony persuasive, and I also found the words of Senator Howard on the Senate floor during the debate on the 14th amendment to be persuasive as well. I don't know how you can ignore the clear meaning of his words.
But the question I had for you is: What is the advantage, why should we pursue Mr. Bilbray's bill as opposed to seeking a constitutional amendment? What are the advantages of trying to change the definition by statute rather than by the Constitution?
Mr. ERLER. Well, I'm of the opinion, as I think you probably are, too, that we ought to amend the Constitution as infrequently as we possibly can. In this instance, I think that Congress has complete power under section 5 of the 14th amendment to DEFINE JURISDICTION [EMPHASIS MINE], to define who is within the jurisdiction of the United States, and in fact has done so on many, many occasions. And so I think that legislation which could cure this increasing public problem that we have is the preferred step.
Mr. SMITH. OK, thank you, Dr. Erler.
I've read that, and I don't agree with Mr. Erler's opinion (and keep in mind that's all it is).
Better, I think, to pursue a Constitutional Amendment to settle this issue once and for all.