So horribly conceived that its central legal holding has held has precedent for 112 years. Just saying.
Moreover, you're arguing how you think the Constitution should be interpreted. Frankly, I don't care how you think the Constitution should be interpreted, and neither should anyone else. Conversely, you shouldn't care how I think the Constitution should be interpreted. All that matters is how the Supreme Court thinks the Constitution should be interpreted. There has been no appetite to overturn (or narrow) Ark in the last 112 years, and I suspect there won't be any change in that appetite for the next 112 years. That's the practical legal reality.
"He was wrong as to the legal definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
If only 5 Supreme Court Justices would agree with you. Thus far, they haven't. I wouldn't hold your breath. Words mater. In this instance, whatever the intent of the author(s) was, he(they) should have chosen his(their) words more carefully. He(they) didn't.
I'll concede this point, the principle authors of the 14th likely wouldn't have intended for it to apply to the children of illegal aliens, not that "illegal alien" was a widely used term in the late 19th century. In fact, as a matter of law, it was literally impossible to be an "illegal alien" at the time the 14th was ratified because the first restrictive immigration law, The Page Act of 1875, wasn't passed until 6 or 7 years later. Before the Page Act, there was existing legislation limiting or defining citizenship eligibility, but there wasn't any law limiting immigration, of any kind. Without any laws stipulating who can or cannot be in the country, it makes it impossible for someone to be here illegally, assuming of course they aren't under arms of a foreign king.
The Congress could have moved to restrict the scope of Ark with another Amendment. They didn't. The Supreme Court could have narrowed their decision in the years subsequent to the enactment of restrictive immigration laws. They haven't. So, we are where we are today.
Yep, the progressive powers that be want to dilute the culture of this nation into a dependent class ignorant of the principles upon which it was founded. And?
Moreover, you're arguing how you think the Constitution should be interpreted.
I suggest you read this because it represents my position on the topic. It's a lot more than just my opinion. There is a huge difference between arguing the principles and law involved and treating it like it is justified because of its status as a virtual fait accomplis. We wouldn't be having this discussion if what you were saying is true.
I first brought the Slaughterhouse Cases to this board in 2003 and have advanced it considerably since with the article linked above. Over the years since, there are a great many FReepers who have requested that I link to it. The public discussion of the principles involved has advanced considerably since then, from being an object of derision to hearing a Congressman on Fox this morning discussing "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in its historically correct sense.
Did I do that? I doubt it, but those efforts have clearly added to the background on the topic and has stimulated discussion about it, which is what gets those charged with making decisions taking those points seriously. That's what we are supposed to be doing here, isn't it?