However, they used the language of Natural born citizen to cover those who were not born in the U.S.
An example would be George Washington, who was born in Virginia a colony of England. His parents had lived in the colonies, and because of that, he George Washington was deemed a Natural Born Citizen.
The way you have it defined, any illegal who drops a child on this soil; that child is eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President, but that was not the intention of this nation's founders. Otherwise, the nation is susceptible to foreign invasion by an enemy actor who impregnates a woman and secrets her into the nation.
I'm sorry Jim, but you are wrong. All you are doing is supporting those who desire is to subvert the Constitution by creating confusion. You had better rethink your position, because it makes absolutely no common sense whatsoever with respect to the Constitution's explicit requirement of Natural Born Citizen. In fact, the Constitution makes no mention of anyone being born in the U.S. as being automatically deemed as a citizen. That only came about by politician's either not thinking the wording through thoroughly, or their intention was to subvert citizenship attainment. I prefer to think the previous was the explanation. However, the Supreme Court certainly used the 14th amendment to come to their ruling, that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen based upon language in the 14th Amendment. The following blurb is from Wikipedia who occasionally get things correct:
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion (overturned in 2022), Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage, and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) regarding race-based college admissions. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.
ASs you can see, the Supreme Court has badly misinterpreted the 14th Amendment on numerous issues. While they omit the citizenship issues in Wikipedia, it to deserves to be mentioned by Wikipedia.
Sadly, you are parroting that lousy ruling that should never have been made based upon the 14th Amendment. Could it have been done by justices who came from the South in retaliation? That would take a lot more research to see if that might be a possibility, which is why I prefer to believe it was poor wording by politicians who didn't think their amendment through thoroughly, and no one else did either. but we are certainly paying the price for it in current times.
I can find no evidence of Bork and his take on the issue. However, I do see Cornell making the claim that the 14th Amendment ruling on Wong Kim Ark made him a Natural Born Citizen,. That was not the ruling though, he was deemed a US citizen, period.
Even you allude that around the begging of the 1900s, leftists gained more control. But they changed nothing in the Constitution. What they did was make proclamations as to the rulings, but they are false proclamations.
The Ark case decided the subject was a citizen (parents legally in the U.S.) because he was born on U.S. soil. How is that not the definition of an NBC?