How is it "abuse?" The constitution says anyone born in the US, whose parents are subject to US laws while on US soil, is a natural born citizen - period. The only people immune to US laws are diplomats and some members of certain Indian tribes.
Was Wong Kim Ark wrongly decided? Or is it wrong to apply its holding to an inquiry about eligibility to the office of president? I think at least the second question is answered "yes, it is wrong to apply Wong Kim Ark to the issue of eligibility." And my initial impression is that the answer to the first question is also "yes - the dissent got it right." I would think that legal residency/domicile are at least required, in order to "be under the jurisdiction" for 14th amendment purposes.
I call the tourist visa baby business ‘abuse’ because while these are legally US citizens, its abusing the intent of the 14th amendment. those who come here on tourist visas for the express purpose of having a baby, end up going back to their home country, and raising them in their own country. They are in effect ‘birthplace shopping’ for some future benefit. That’s not what those who wrote these provisions could have envisioned. Congress could perhaps legislate this out, if the SCOTUS allows it.
I’ve been in half a dozen discussions/ go arounds on Wong Kim Ark in the past week, so not caring to go over that ground. Whether good or bad decision, consider that it is precedent for 100 years. will it change? Good luck.