Birthright Citizenship Should End – It’s a Magnet for Immigration Fraud and Could Threaten...

CPT Jack Durish Agreed, I believe the intent was to grant citizenship to children born here to parents that were legally in the country.

It seems mighty strange that a legal right to citizenship can come about to one person by means of a violation of immigration law by another person.
Offhand, I'd say that broad an interpretation of the 14th Amendment violates "common sense".

SP5 Mark Kuzinski My sentiments as well

MCPO Roger Collins - One point to consider in the case of Wong Kim Ark -- it appears his parents were "domiciled residents" in the USA, which I take to mean they were legally admitted to this country, and had every right under our laws to be here and (as noted) "conduct business" in this country.
That is not the circumstances in question, so-called "anchor babies" who are born of illegal aliens whose very presence on American soil is a crime.

CW3 Harvey K. you are preaching to the choir, it would be gone tomorrow if I could make it happen. But, as it stands today, it’s the law, validated by the SCOTUS.

MCPO Roger Collins - I agree with your point of view, but find the case of Wong Kim Ark to not set a precedent concerning "anchor babies" of illegals. From all indications, Ark's parents were here legally. That's a very important point.
In the matter of the situation discussed in the article, the "legal" status of women here on visas granted for spurious reasons, was granted through fraud, possibly even involving perjury to obtain that visa. That would invalidate the supposed legal presence of that person in the country.

MCPO Roger Collins - Wong Kim Ark, 1898. Indeed. It’s been precedent since. The Court really hasn’t revisited the issue since.

You wrote, “it has been ruled as Constitutional, as interpreted by liberal leaning SCOTUS.” The Supreme Court wasn’t particularly liberal in 1898. It was the same Court that decided ‘separate but equal’ Plessy v Ferguson (1896). Women’s suffrage wasn’t really a thing yet. Chief Justice Fuller had a fairly shaky record of voting in favor of any cases that would advance civil rights for minorities.

The Fuller Court was a lot of things. ‘Liberal’ really wasn’t one of them.
Some cases of note of the Fuller Court are,
Pollock v Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
Plessy v Ferguson (1896)
Lone Wolf v Hitchcock (1903)

CW3 Harvey K. I agree, this is certainly an issue. And as it has apparently been ignored by previous administrations, it has only gotten worse. But shouldn’t those problems then be addressed? Better immigration screenings, better visa oversight...heck, if there’s a house with 20, eight month pregnant tourists, maybe take a look at the owner of the house.