Your point #2 would require a constitutional amendment.
Yes, possibly, but interpretations in the Courts has not stopped clearly un-Constitutional legislation in the past, where activist courts have succeeded in torturous readings to justify findings.
If it takes a Constitutional Amendment, the passage would be asssured as I'm sure that 2/3 of the States would ratify the change, to negate the past precedent of the interpretation that "persons" and not "citizens" was a mistake by the Courts in justifying foreign Nationals having "anchor babies" in the first place.
Under current legal precedent, if a busload of migrants in their ninth month of pregnancy make it into the U.S., we get a BUSLOAD OF ANCHOR BABIES, and whether or not they (the mothers) are here illegally or not is of no consequence to the Court....the babies are suddenly afforded automatic citizenship, the illegals are afforded taxpayer-funded medical, social, and other benefits. This CLEARLY was not the intent of the Framers, EXCEPT in the interpretation of the Court, and this NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. This also would relieve the burden to infrastructure, school systems, social-benefit systems, etc., and would remove the incentive to "anchor" illegals in this country.
Fat chance that Congress would EVER do such a bit of legislation with business interests being furiously fighting any loss of their pipeline/supply of low-wage help.
Not really, Congress has the power to make legislation that fits enforcement - but does not have the balls.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.