Let's read the rest of it.
...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The first sentence you partially posted defines what a citizen is. The second sentence defines what any state cannot do to a citizen.
Additionally, after the semi-colon, it continues to define other limitations placed on the State as concerns those who are NOT citizens but are labeled as 'persons'. That is clear from the usage of the word 'nor'.
It's pretty clear that the 14th covers citizens and non-citizens. I wish to Heaven that they'd written it to just use the word citizen but that was clearly not the intent. Thus the usage of the word 'persons'.
Because illegal immigrants have violated federal law it does not mean they have no rights. They are afforded due process under the 14th. Limited rights but the right to due process at the very least.
All persons Born or Naturalized in the United States...
; nor shall any state deprive any person of
********************
This amendment has to do with freed slaves and the inclusiveness of the part you want to focus on is just a way to include the freed slaves who were not yet always treated as citizens ... The opening sentence makes it clear that persons born outside the USA who are not naturalized are not protected or included...
I see there are reasons that cases go before SCOTUS.
In my limited legal opinion, the “persons” were defined in the first sentence.
No other definitions of “persons” regarding the amendment were forthcoming.
See you in DC.
8^)
5.56mm