Birthright Citizenship Isn’t Real

So the article just ignores the two cases that actually establish birthright citizenship:

the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers*, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649

In case that's too old-timey to be understood, there's also

no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

*"foreign sovereigns and their ministers" means basically diplomats.

Note that the author has a "bachelor’s degree in economics and a master’s degree in public policy, finance, and international relations from the University of Colorado." He has no legal training which makes it a bit less surprising that he missed the key cases, but then again all you really need to know is how to use wikipedia.

It's in the constitution. So yeah.