Should the 14th Amendment be amended to correct a legal oversight?

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

The 14th was intended to guarantee that former slaves, born in the US, were considered citizens. Its later exploitation by illegal aliens to bare children creating a little citizen is unfortunate, but legal. I agree an additional amendment stating "Children born in the US are considered Citizens of the US only if one of their parents, at the time of their birth, is a US Citizen. Congress may make such laws as necessary to enforce this amendment." This puts legal alien residents in a difficult spot and their circumstance may need some accommodation. The child of two Syrian refugee legal aliens born in the US is a citizen of Syria? What if his or her parents never leave the US and become Citizens after 10 or 15 years? Does the child then become a citizen? I would like the amendment to say "at the time of conception", thus admitting that life and Citizenship begins at conception, but I don't think that's politically acceptable. Also, this could create a whole marriage for citizenship of the child industry, so Congress would have to deal with that.

"Legal oversight"? That's a leap. I'm an engineer history buff which means I'm a rarity I guess. The citizenship issue was 95% former slave and 5% native american driven, or thereabouts. Although Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 over President Andrew Johnson's veto, there was concern that the citizenship conferred on former slaves was on shaky Constitutional grounds as the Supreme Court could overturn it as a legislative attempt to toss their Dred Scott decision. There were several iterations, but it had leverage as the former Confederate states were on the hook to ratify as a condition of regaining seats in the House and Senate, post war. The Reconstruction Acts essentially kept replacing those state's political leadership until they played ball. Although there were some discussions about kids born to diplomats, etc., immigration was pretty much wide open at the time because the country was growing. Interesting thing was the European immigrant was OK, but the Chinese weren't. It took the Wom Kim Ark decision in 1898 set the precedence for all nationalities. Although ratified, a number of states existing at the time didn't ratify it until later. Kentucky was the last in 1976. It'd be an interesting research paper on how the Kentucky dynamic played out.

So the issue is to what extent does the judiciary go to deal with changing times? We are all over the map on that one. Some is OK but a lot isn't? In all likelihood, the Reconstruction Acts were the most blatant in stomping on state and individual rights. The newly ratified 14th equal protection aspect runs headlong into what the Feds were doing in the South that they weren't doing in the North.

It wasn't an oversight, there are contemporaneous writings with the same thoughts

I think this is a slippery slope. If we can strip some natural born citizens of their citizenship then what is to stop the government from expanding this later? Now I firmly believe that if the parents are illegal, then having a citizen child should have no bearing on if the parent is deported or not. The kid wouldn't be deported but if the parents choose to take them then that is on them.

IF the law was applied properly, this would not be a subject of question. All that needs to be done would be to check Section 1992 of the U.S. Revised Statutes, where the same congress that had adopted the 14th Amendment, confirmed the principle that should be applied.