Common sense dictates that as the definition of insanity.
Not only does it place the children of these invaders above those who followed the law of this land to become citizens, it places them on par with an actual Natural Born Citizen.
The Supreme Court riled incorrectly, as it has done on a number of issues since that incorrect ruling. Everyone at the time the amendment was passed, ratified & became law, that it was addressing those children born of people who were brought to this country against their will & desire that subsequently created offspring, their offspring were indeed to be considered as NBC.
There was indeed a Chinese slave trade/human trafficking that was ongoing during that period, especially on the west coast state of California which had its base in San Francisco. Now if the Chinese man could prove that he was a product of that slave trade/human trafficking, then he would indeed have passed the test, and the Supreme Court ruling was justified.
This issue was never a problem, until the Democrats started using the 14th amendment as justification to create more citizens to become their constituents, by making the argument that the 14th amendment was really granting citizenship via jus soli, citing that the UK, Canada & Australia have always provided citizenship on this basis, and there are now 33 nations that recognize jus sole.
Do the all recognize the children of illegal invaders who give birth in those countries grant citizenship to the children? That I do not know the answer to that question, or the question as to what other considerations may exist in granting citizenship upon their children by virtue of being born there. We know that the U.S. does not recognize the children of American citizens when those citizens have not reside in the U.S. for 14 years, unless those parents were on assignment overseas in service for the U.S. government.
But jus soli is not extended to the parents. They should either be deported & the child taken for adoption, unless the parents want to take the child with them. But regardless, these children are still not NBC, even if the parents were here legally, but had not attained formal U.S. citizenship via the naturalization process. Their children are granted citizenship, but they are still not viewed as NBC.
Over your approach, I’ll take Judge Robert Bork. the leading constitutional scholar of his time, and his definition of sound constitutional application: apply the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. I think the Court would (or should) as well.
Your opinion is subjective and not based on the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended but on “old fashioned common sense.”
NBC is a legal matter and since Court precedent on this issue is based on sound constitutional application (rare in the 20th century), precedent should win the day in Court over your subjective opinion. See you then.