Let me know when you feel like explaining why my reply was irrelevant.
Ok, because you claim that "intent" is irrelevant. Therefore, whatever "intent" your reply had, regardless of your intent, it was irrelevant.
Since you like parables, how's this:
Suppose you were driving along the street, obeying all the traffic laws and someone steps out in front of your car and you kill them. What was your intent? Murder? Manslaughter? What shall the DA charge you with? Or was it an accident and your "intent" was not to hurt anyone at all. But, like your 2nd grade example, you did kill the jaywalker, therefore, according to your logic, your intent, benevolent or malevolent, is irrelevant. You have the right to remain silent.
In the case of the 14th Amendment, the context of the times was slavery and the patriation American Negroes from slaves to full US citizens and not for Mexican nationals to purposely arrange the birth of their offspring within the US to make them US citizens. It was not the intent of the 14th. Amendment to promote Mexicans into jaywalking across the US Border, drop their kid in El Norte` and use the newborn to get a specious legal argument for residence. Making US citizens out of Mexican newborns was not the intent of the 14th. Amendment, as the commentary from the times, posted at the beginning of this thread, bears witness.
If you have or will ever sit on a jury, intent is a large consideration during the trial and deliberation. I admit that the wording of the 14th. Amendment is very broad, but no person of integrity would ever imply that the intent was to enable foreign nationals, conceived as such, to become US citizens if birth takes place within US borders.