I guess is easy to just say things in this forum without bringing concrete evidence.

However, I will try to rationalize disprove your claim that the 14th amendment was made to not send "people back to africa" as you say.

The Supreme Court of the United States has determined that "In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted."

"The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "seven years a citizen of the United States," and every Senator to have been "nine years a citizen of the United States." and "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President." The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that"

"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," [This is the Fourteenth Amendment]

"also declares that"

"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."

"And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that"

"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."

"And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that"

"the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude."

"The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. (see Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; and Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; and Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; and Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465).

The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. (see Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274)."

"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. (see 21 Wall. 167)."

"In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:"

"There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. (see 124 U.S. 478)."

The Fourteenth Amendment “was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect."

Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States. (see The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), 16 Wall. 36, 73; see Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), 100 U.S. 303, 306.; see Ex parte Virginia (1879). 100 U.S. 339, 35; see Neal v. Delaware (1880), 103 U.S. 370, 386; see Elk v. Wilkins (1884), 112 U.S. 94, 101.)”

Citing Justice Bradley, Justice Gray affirms that “[t]he question is now settled by the Fourteenth Amendment itself, that citizenship of the United States is the primary citizenship in this country, and that state citizenship is secondary and derivative, depending upon citizenship of the United States and the citizen's place of residence. The States have not now, if they ever had, any power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons.”

Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley agreed with Justice Field when saying that “[the Fourteenth Amendment] recognizes in express terms, if it does not create, citizens of the United States, and it makes their citizenship dependent upon the place of their birth, or the fact of their adoption, and not upon the constitution or laws of any State or the condition of their ancestry.”

“The language employed [in the Fourteenth Amendment] is unqualified in its scope. There is no exception in its terms, and there can be properly none in their application. By the language "citizens of the United States" was meant all such citizens, and by "any person" was meant all persons within the jurisdiction of the State. No distinction is intimated on account of race or color. This court has no authority to interpolate a limitation that is neither expressed nor implied. Our duty is to execute the law, not to make it. The protection provided was not intended to be confined to those of any particular race or class, but to embrace equally all races, classes and conditions of men.” (Justice Swayne opinion).

In 1958, the supreme Court further added that the Fourteenth Amendment, in the Perez case that “[t]he Government is without power to take citizenship away from a native-born or lawfully naturalized American. The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes that this priceless right is immune from the exercise of governmental powers."

"If the Government determines that certain conduct by United States citizens should be prohibited because of anticipated injurious consequences to the conduct of foreign affairs or to some other legitimate governmental interest, it may within the limits of the Constitution proscribe such activity and assess appropriate punishment. But every exercise of governmental power must find its source in the Constitution. The power to denationalize is not within the letter or the spirit of the powers with which our Government was endowed."

"The citizen may elect to renounce his citizenship, and, under some circumstances, he may be found to have abandoned his status by voluntarily performing acts that compromise his undivided allegiance to his country. The mere act of voting in a foreign election, however, without regard to the circumstances attending the participation, is not sufficient to show a voluntary abandonment of citizenship. The record in this case does not disclose any of the circumstances under which this petitioner voted. We know only the bare fact that he cast a ballot. The basic right of American citizenship has been too dearly won to be so lightly lost."

"I fully recognize that only the most compelling considerations should lead to the invalidation of congressional action, and where legislative judgments are involved, this Court should not intervene. But the Court also has its duties, none of which demands more diligent performance than that of protecting the fundamental rights of individuals. That duty is imperative when the citizenship of an American is at stake -- that status which alone assures him the full enjoyment of the precious rights conferred by our Constitution.”

CONCLUSION

The fourteenth Amendment was not enacted or passed to protect the rights of Blacks in America, that had already been protected through the Dred Scott v. Sandford case prior to the birth of the fourteenth amendment. What the Foourteenth amendment does is to protect the rights of citizens that are targetted by a group of people who have threatened the security of this country by insiting divisive thoughts.

The Fourteenth Amendment was born after the civil war. We should preserv the principles contained in the language of the Fourteenth Amendment. Not doing so is a threat to the stability of a nation.

I hope this explenation open a serious and logical discussion.