"I was referring to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which bestows citizenship on anyone born in America."
The drafters of the 14th amendment during congressional deliberations on the amendment EXPLICITLY said that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship simply because you are in the borders of the United States.
The word "subject to the jurisdiction" was meant to allow Congress, NOT the Courts, to define who is under American jurisdiction by appropriate Congressional statutes.
The Congress can actually pass a statute defining "jurisdiction" as a child born to parent/parents who are lawfully present within the United States. Also, the Congress can make this law unreviewable by any Federal Court, including SCOTUS as per Congress' powers under Article III Section II of the Constitution. Even if that law is unconstitutional, SCOTUS can't review it.
If someone doesn't like a law banning anchor babies from citizenship, the people can go to the ballot box and vote in Congressman willing to restore birthright citizenship.
"The drafters of the 14th amendment during congressional deliberations on the amendment EXPLICITLY said that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship simply because you are in the borders of the United States."
Legislative history is interesting, like the Federalist Papers. But it is only advisory.
What is written down and passed as law is the only thing that actually IS law, and is binding. The 14th Amendment on its face applies the lex solis. I'd expect that any effort to simply legislate that away would be struck down by the Courts as unconstitutional.
If some one doesn't like the law they will have it in the Court system before the first enforcement.