Read this article. Will be up to interpretation.
The Supreme Court has never officially ruled on the interpretation of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, which states: "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."
https://www.numbersusa.com/news/supreme-court-opinions-about-birthright-citizenship-and-14th-amendment
>>3663662 this is what the left hangs their hat on.
There have been later rulings that dealt with birthright citizenship for legal immigrants such as the case in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). This case is often cited by supporters of Birthright Citizenship, but the Court clearly ruled that the defendant's parents were legal permanent residents of the United States at the time of his birth, and not once was the legal status of the parents or the defendant ever questioned.
The Supreme Court ruled:
"[A] child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and… are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
No, Q did not.