You need to read the text and plain language of the 14th Amendment. The first sentence of the amendment reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States...” There is zero language that limits the language or any provision of the !4th Amendment to slaves or slavery. In fact, it would be a liberal, activist judge who would read and interpret the language to the meaning you want. I suggest you read the entire opinion in the Wong Kim Ark v. USA case to fully understand this issue. SCOTUS takes the approach of Justice Scalia (a literalist, textual reading of the language of the law in question) in it's decision. It does not read words into the amendment that do not exist, such as you advocate.
It appears that your problem is with the authors of the amendment and the broad language they used, rather than to the individuals who are charged by the US Constitution to apply the language to our country's jurisprudence.
If you don't like the 14th Amendment and it's application, then your remedy is to organize to ratify an amendment to overturn the provision(s) you do not like, such as was done to prohibition.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
Fine. It declares we must maintain perpetual allegiance to the Crown of England, and pay our tithes to the Anglican Church.
You need to read the text and plain language of the 14th Amendment. The first sentence of the amendment reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States...” There is zero language that limits the language or any provision of the !4th Amendment to slaves or slavery. In fact, it would be a liberal, activist judge who would read and interpret the language to the meaning you want. I suggest you read the entire opinion in the Wong Kim Ark v. USA case to fully understand this issue. SCOTUS takes the approach of Justice Scalia (a literalist, textual reading of the language of the law in question) in it's decision. It does not read words into the amendment that do not exist, such as you advocate.
The Civil Rights Bill was debated on March 8 and 9. Representative John Broomall of Pennsylvania identified "the rights and immunities of citizens" as including the writ of habeas corpus and the right of petition.[50] Representative Henry Raymond of New York, the editor of the New York Times and a member of the Joint Committee, proposed an amendment to the bill declaring that all persons born in the United States are "citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such."[51] This formulation is similar to what would become the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Raymond explained:
"Make the colored man a citizen of the United States and he has every right which you or I have as citizens of the United States under the laws and constitution of the United States. ... He has defined status; he has a country and a home; a right to defend himself and his wife and children; a right to bear arms"[52] (emphasis added).
The PRIMARY purpose of the 14th was to accomplish the above. They had to resort to jus soli for former slaves because former slaves had no claim to jus sanguinus.
It appears that your problem is with the authors of the amendment and the broad language they used, rather than to the individuals who are charged by the US Constitution to apply the language to our country's jurisprudence.
Not so much. It is the fact that Judges are applying their own opinions and calling it law instead of trying to actually apply what was passed as law by the congress, and ratified by the states as an Amendment. Do you think a single congressman or state legislator thought they were voting for anchor babies or abortion or a Judicial war against religion? Add that to the fact that the 14 amendment was forced down people's throats at the point of a gun and you ought to be able to see why it should deserve some criticism. It is the source for much horrible mischief by the courts ever since.
It's intentions were good, it's wording and implementation sucked.
If you don't like the 14th Amendment and it's application, then your remedy is to organize to ratify an amendment to overturn the provision(s) you do not like, such as was done to prohibition.
And one goes about this by showing how people are misapplying it to the detriment of the nation and thereby convince people that it needs to applied correctly, or be replaced with something better.
The first thing to be done is to get people to understand it's purpose, and show how that purpose is being ill served by letting judges screw up the interpretation of it.