As for today it is an amendment that needs to be revisited. With the scores of illegal immigrants coming across the boder to have an “anchor baby” it probably would help save us from the impending financial collapse that both the democrats and republicans have put us in.

While it may be a weak case, there is some argument that we could define who is under the “jurisdiction” of the United States in such a way as to exclude illegal immigrants. The “Modern Controversy” section of the Wikpedia article on this subject was informative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America

It is worth noting that other constitutional issues have hinged in the courts on far less than this. “Emanations and penumbras” anyone?

Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. We have somehow come today to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction. But this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous and without force. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, presumably they would simply have said that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are thereby citizens.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=07

Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction
understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes …persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.

And include a link to their email, so everyone knows where to write to.

Chaffetz is very much aware of the Constitution here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705269023,00.html

“…we should not do so at the expense of the principles of the Constitution,” Chaffetz said.