I am trying to figure out how to explain this thing to you.
Not everyone in the legal system is a leftist deliberately trying to distort things. Most of them just accept what their professors tell them, and what other courts have said. The legal system is stuck on this idea called "precedent." They give ridiculous levels of respect to decisions prior judges have made.
You see, they don't try to think for themselves, or to re=litigate a case that has already been litigated, they just accept whatever the Judge presiding over it decided was the truth.
You seem to think it is a conspiracy of deliberately twisting. I think it's a conspiracy of being complacent, accepting "authority", and not thinking for yourself.
The legal people are like a herd of cows. They follow wherever the dominant members of the herd go.
Now if you want to say those dominant herd members have deliberately twisted things, I won't disagree with you, but it's harder to twist things when they are written more clearly.
There is no way that the 14th could be written that would satisfy left wing judges,
I disagree. They could have just said, "Former black slaves born in America are now citizens."
Hard to apply that to illegals.
Yes they are.
Yes.
They.
Are.
They (legal system) are all guilty. Everyone. Guilty, guilty, guilty. Rare people come out like A. Scalia and C. Thomas and others. Exceptions.
Look, I know we don't and won't agree so this is where we shake hands peacefully and go our separate directions.
I will always blame progressives first, forever. And you won't. We are just different this way. Progressivism is America's Cancer. I'm not kidding about that. Progressivism is America's Cancer.
"They could have just said"
There was and is no need to do so. Everybody understands that a British subject is subject to the jurisdiction therof of the British government.
Today's judges are not dum dum dummies, no such dumbing down of the phrase is required and even with that phrasing that's kind of condescending because that wouldn't even be for the judges anyways, who rumor has it go through decades of education to know what these things mean, that phrase you posited would be for 10 year olds playing minecraft which just leads to basically the same thing as above.
I will always blame progressives first, forever. And you won't. That's it. That is the foundational problem of why you and I keep ending up here.
Again the whole shaking of hands thing.
We should wait until SCOTUS issues.
[Quoting Progressing America] There is no way that the 14th could be written that would satisfy left wing judges,
They could and they did. The Framer said explicitly that his intent was not to change the law as it was, but to place it beyond the power of the Legislature to change.
14A Senate Debate:
Mr. HOWARD This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.[...]
Mr. HOWARD. I was a member of the same committee, and the Senator's observations apply to me equally with the Senator from Maine. We desired to put this question of citizenship and the rights of citizens and freedmen under the civil rights bill beyond the legislative power of such gentlemen as the Senator from Wisconsin, who would pull the whole system up by the roots and destroy it, and expose the freedmen again to the oppressions of their old masters.
As for the law of the land already, birthright citizenship was the law of the colonies pursuant to British common law, and upon statehood it was carried forward into the States.
While the history is patently obvious that immigrants came to the United States and their children born here were not naturalized, but considered to be natural born citizens, the opinion in Lynch v. Clark in 1844 makes perfectly clear what the law was prior to 14A.
If birthright citizenship were not the law prior to 14A, then all those unnaturalized children of immigrants never became citizens. And their children never became citizens. And the children of their children of their children never became citizens. Etc.
Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. 583 (1844), as published in New York Legal Observer, Volume III, 1845:
It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents.[...]
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
14A clearly expresses what its framer, Senator Jacob Howard stated as his intent. Birthright citizenship has been the law of this land since before the DoI. It was not questioned until 2008. There was no such thing as an illegal alien at the time 14A was adopted. 14A predates the first U.S. immigration control law. It was not possible to be an illegal alien when there was no law to violate.