I repeat, you need to understand the context and intent.
That's not what the Amendment says. It might be what you want it to say, but nothing you've provided re "context" or "intent" indicates the above (Post #273).
Why do you think that the 14th Amendment was created?
That's not what the constitution says.
You seem confused. The issue is not about non-citizens or illegal immigrants. Obviously they are not citizens of this country until natuarlized. But children born here are natural born citizens regardless.
It establishes rights and citizenship for ALL PERSONS BORN in the US. That is the intent of the 14th Amendment.
It was about "all persons born" or naturalized in the US. I dont know where you get the illegal immigrant idea from.
Doesn't matter what I think about your question.
You need to read about why the 14th Amendment was created.
The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment are known collectively as "The Civil War Amendments" or "The Reconstruction Amendments," all passed in the same three year period after the Civil War. The Civil War was fought to bring an end to slavery. The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery. The 14th Amendment guaranteed equal rights for former slaves. The 15th Amendment guaranteed the right to vote for former slaves. All three are devoted to correcting the injustice against former slaves and protecting their equal rights in the future.
The 14th establishes rights and citizenship for "all persons born or naturalized." There, simple enough.
Have you read the 14th amendment and about why it was created?
The answer is A.
You offered nothing to support your assertion the 14th applied to those born from American citizens. Provide a SCOTUS case ruling on thet intent of the 14th Amendment! Until you do, it is nothing more than your own opinion.
Doesn't matter what others think about "intent". What matters is this: text and interpretation by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Why was the 14th Amendment created?
Doesn't matter. What matters: the Amendment's text and SCOTUS interpretations.
If the Constitution were "simple," we wouldn't need the Supreme Court. Of equal importance to the words are the legislative history and Congressional intent. I don't know how SCOTUS will decide, but I know that the "simple minded" objections on the left ignore a great deal.
What does left or right have to do with anything? Or are you just making assumptions or sweeping generalizations? Regardless, the text is clear. Cite where the SCOTUS ruled on the intent of the 14th!
That's easy. Those people here on the left are almost all saying the same words. It's obvious who they are and that they support illegal immigration, probably because Biden did it. They are uniformly opposed to regulation of any sort on immigration. The left/right division is very sharply drawn.
In 1898 they ruled that a child born here to non-citizens was a citizen and, in their reasoning, made a point of the fact that his parents had been resident here and, "That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco." That fact, not typical of today's illegal aliens, must have meant something to the Justices.
None of us knows whether trump's attempt to E. O. a change to the 14th Amendment will end up being decided by the SCOTUS. Or how the current Supreme Court would rule.
Post #296
It's also easy to say the same one word when one doesn't consider any other interpretation. It's easy to tell the future, too. If the USSC decides as I think they should, you on the left will caterwaul about "Trump's Judges" or some other such political whining.
Since they're going to hear arguments on the case in a few days, it's a pretty good bet they'll decide it. (The purpose of the E.O. was to be sued so that SCOTUS would decide the issue.)