Ever hear of “Indians?” Ever hear of “Indian casinos?” Why have those casinos been able to operate operate “against the law?” Simple - the “Indians” were born in the United States, but they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”In a similar way, foreign nationals (from Mexico or anywhere else) who enter the US against the law, and who are legally required to turn themselves in and leave America rather than colonizing it, are not “subject to the laws thereof.” They do not subject themselves to the laws of the US. Their very presence is illegal - they cannot be in the country and simultaneously claim to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. That is inherently untrue.
At most it requires a mere act of Congress - not a constitutional amendment - to clarify that the government of the US does not accept the colonizing the US.
SCOTUS has ruled that the Indian NATIONS, are dependent Nations (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Peters) 1 (1831)). In Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign. Thus lands of the different Indian nations could not fall within state jurisdiction. By the way, if you are on Indian tribal lands and you break their laws, you will be arrested by tribal police and prosecuted in tribal court in most cases.
The SCOTUS Dred Scott decision (1857) comes along and rules that blacks can’t be citizens. Congress decides to over turn this decision (note the parallel to what you are recommending) with the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was further “enhanced” to prevent further congress from overturning the Civil Rights Act (parallel to what I am saying will happen ‘cause the Dems never give up) they passed the 14th Amendment. At the time of the amendment’s passage, three Senators, including Trumbull,[52] the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment would confer citizenship on such children at birth. Others, including the author of the citizenship clause put forward other interpretations. However, neither interpretation hold the weight of law. In the US, SCOTUS rules on the meaning and impact of laws.
Now SCOTUS has ruled that the 14th means anyone born in the boundaries of the US on US soil, is a US citizen. To change this all that has to be done is passing an act of Congress (like the civil rights act of 1866). Which WONT happen as long as the Uniparty is in power. And it will only take a mere act of Congress to reverse that policy if it ever gets put in place. It is also quite possible that SCOTUS will try and rule that the act is unconstitutional.
So to get rid of automatic birth right citizenship AND TO MAKE SURE IT STICKS, you need an amendment change (just exactly why they passed the 14th in the first place).