It can be legitimately argued that it is not a violation of the 14th Amendment due to the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause.
"Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons as citizens who do not owe allegiance to some other government when naturalized or born."
This is arguably an issue since persons who only hold documentation from a foreign sovereign nation owe allegiance to the issuing nation, and since they are not following the immigration laws of the US are not applying or seeking citizenship.
"Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States."
"Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said "Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power." Thus, the statute can be read as "All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States."
Interpretations of the Constitution and Amendments do evolve over time to include such things as equality for sexual preferences.
It would seem if one is waving a foreign flag while demanding legal recourse are undermining their own case based on the jurisdiction clause.
Just because a loophole or lack of judicial review allow past actions such as race, gender, or sexual orientation discrimination to exist does not necessarily make the actions legal.
Given the relative difficulty of travel in the era of the Constitution the assumption was made that primarily only those who wished to be Americans would want American citizenship, not the economic immigrants who want only the advantages without the responsibility of allegiance.