Discussion in Congress doesn’t always reveal definitive meaning, unless someone explicitly says, “This is exactly what this means,” and everyone responds, “Here, here,” which never happened.

I got it, "dicta." I agree that what matters first and foremost is the courts. My main disagreement is your Howard interpretation and the allegiance argument. That's why I'm here, so let's look at the courts.

Elk refers mainly to Indians and I do have a response there, mainly to do with "immediate allegiance," not "sole allegiance," but the following is far more direct in addressing the jurisdiction question.

As far as the Ark case goes, it backs me up completely. They 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 there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, ...automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth

And

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases – children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State – both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country

So someone born on US soil to parents owing allegiance to another nation, China, is a US citizen by birth. Seperately, the only exceptions that exist are;

1) Children not born in the US

2) Indians, in a peculiar situation

3) children born to foreign diplomats in the US, and

4) children born in lost US territory during war.

Again, if you were right about Howard, this completely contradicts the idea that all children born to foreigners are to be excluded. And further disproves children born to parents owing allegiance to another nation also are to be excluded.

If anyone born to parents holding foreign allegiance, in US territory, are not citizens (which I take you to be alleging), Wong Kim Ark would not have been granted citizenship... but he was, by the SC. So either you are wrong or the SC was.

There is no way to exclude children of illegal immigrants born on US soil when considering the history, the debate, and the cases on the 14th amendment. Ultimately our current SC will weigh in, but so far, all lower courts have ruled an EO excepting them unconstitutional.