One must be careful when trying to define the difference between granting and protecting. As the 1st Amendment protects freedom of religion & speech, the 14th protects the right as a freed person to be treated fairly as a free citizen. Thus the 14th grants no rights, it protects rights. And I agree with you on the make believe place that came out of thin air when the states allowed the US govt to decide who the citizens of the sates are rather than the other way around. This is the problem Chief Justice Field had with the 14th and the WKA ruling, it created something that the constitution did not support, a national territory as one big state thereby usurping the rights of the individual states. Field knew that Gray's opinion would lead to the erosion of the meaning of sovereign US citizenry which was not the intent of the framers of the 14th, nor the states that ratified it.
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States”
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Fuller.
Excellent point.
IMHO, it should have been up to the States to decide on the subject of jus soli citizenship while the federal government continued to exercise its authority to set the standards for naturalization.