To solve this problem all we need is a UN law that any stateless citizen is exempt from any and all taxation for life worldwide. Suddenly governments would not be so keen to create stateless people.
Then the problem becomes the UN getting a big enough army to make the nations’ governments comply with the law.
There’s always a fly in the ointment. 
And even some of that minority might change their tune after some explanation. A week or two ago, a discussion started among some of my Facebook friends about only people with four grandparents born in the US being permitted to vote. My mother seemed to be all for it , until I reminded her that if that was the rule , she wouldn’t be able to vote, I wouldn’t be able to vote, my kids wouldn’t be able to vote and even my future grandchildren wouldn’t be able to vote. (because each generation had at least one immigrant grandparent) At that point, she shut up. I shouldn’t have had to remind her of those facts, but I did. (Just like I’ve had to remind her that no, her immigrant grandparents did not learn to speak English. At least not the two who lived long enough for me to remember them)
It would also mean Trump’s kids couldn’t vote. Barack Obama couldn’t vote. Maria Shriver’s kids couldn’t vote… and that’s just naming off a few celebrity-level people.
People get stupid ideas then perpetuate them because they don’t actually think them through.
Also, why are we comparing Ireland or Switzerland to the USA? The population of Ireland is 4.6 mil. Switzerland is 8 mil. The USA is 310 mil. The problem to me is keeping all these other US citizens out of my neighborhood. People like the Latinos and the Indians are not a problem. They’ve lived here for decades and everything is fine. I don’t want somebody moving here from some red state because his health care got cancelled.
As far as I can tell, it would even mean that Trump couldn’t vote – since, as far as I can tell, his mother was born in Scotland, and his father’s parents in Germany.
I’m curious why you think *having *birthright citizenship creates an underclass.
As near as we can see by comparing the US and Germany, it’s the *absence *of birthright citizenship that creates a permanent underclass of lifelong almost-Germans who will never feel like Germans, and neither will their children or grandchildren or great grandchildren.
It would still take 38/50 states to make any such amendment part of the Constitution. If a proposal could get 38 votes, maybe it isn’t so wacky after all.
Didn’t most of these have this until recently?
NZ had birthright citizenship until 2006, when it changed to require at least one parent be an NZ citizen or resident/permanent resident. The change, in part at least, appears to have been predicated on concerns around “anchor babies”.
Australia made similar changes in 2007, though I believe they have some sort of additional rule that a child can get citizenship if they live their first 10 years in Oz.
From this site, at the time it was published (2013-14) the stats were:
US immigrant population: 42.4 million; about half of them have naturalized already
Immigrant population plus US-born children estimated at 81 million
From that total:
Unauthorized immigrants: 11.3 million
Children of unauthorized immigrants who were US born: 4.1 million
“Resident Noninmigrant Population” i.e. people on work/study visas and others such: 1.9 million
This tells me among other things: people who have lawfully immigrated into the US are the vast majority of the foreign-born population; theirs in turn is the vast majority of the children of non-US-native parents born in the US.
ISTM that birthright citizenship for the children of those who have officially immigrated to live and work permanently and lawfully among us, and of those to whom the US has granted official refuge, should not be objected.
So a scenario as mentioned above by Arcite, of rather than doing away with the birthright clause in the Constitution, instead narrowing the scope of who is eligible for birthright citizenship, *could *gain political traction due to it covering for a majority of such cases. Of course more than right vs. left, the issue in the courts would be how far can ordinary statute go in narrowing down the meaning of an explicit constitutional provision. As pointed out they have recognized exceptions already widely accepted (foreign agents and representatives, deployed troops); but OTOH they have limited th scopes when it comes to things like qualifications for office, and *nobody *except for the First Congress even tried to really define “natural born” in writing.
What mid-term elections? If the Constitutional Convention is before then, there might never be another election. All current Congress-critters are appointed for life in the new hereditary Peoples Congress. As you said all things are then possible. As bad as some think the current Constitution is, a constitutional convention is worse. Nobody knows what could be handed down. No abortion, no guns, no income tax, no separate states, no term limits, no lobbyists, no free speech.