Wong Kim Ark was a terribly conceived and justified decision, in no way reflecting original intent, which Miller lays out in the Slaughterhouse Cases. I'd offer you Fuller's dissent on Wong Kim Ark but I detect an agenda.
One Senator (I believe from Pennsylvania) rails that the Amendment would give citizenship to the children of "trespassers and gypsies". He was right.
He was right that it could be interpreted that way. He was wrong as to the legal definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Effectively, the current interpretation is akin to a press gang or a kidnapping aboard ship. It is also a violation of the parents' natural law rights of first possession.
So horribly conceived that its central legal holding has held has precedent for 112 years. Just saying.
Moreover, you're arguing how you think the Constitution should be interpreted. Frankly, I don't care how you think the Constitution should be interpreted, and neither should anyone else. Conversely, you shouldn't care how I think the Constitution should be interpreted. All that matters is how the Supreme Court thinks the Constitution should be interpreted. There has been no appetite to overturn (or narrow) Ark in the last 112 years, and I suspect there won't be any change in that appetite for the next 112 years. That's the practical legal reality.
"He was wrong as to the legal definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
If only 5 Supreme Court Justices would agree with you. Thus far, they haven't. I wouldn't hold your breath. Words mater. In this instance, whatever the intent of the author(s) was, he(they) should have chosen his(their) words more carefully. He(they) didn't.
I'll concede this point, the principle authors of the 14th likely wouldn't have intended for it to apply to the children of illegal aliens, not that "illegal alien" was a widely used term in the late 19th century. In fact, as a matter of law, it was literally impossible to be an "illegal alien" at the time the 14th was ratified because the first restrictive immigration law, The Page Act of 1875, wasn't passed until 6 or 7 years later. Before the Page Act, there was existing legislation limiting or defining citizenship eligibility, but there wasn't any law limiting immigration, of any kind. Without any laws stipulating who can or cannot be in the country, it makes it impossible for someone to be here illegally, assuming of course they aren't under arms of a foreign king.
The Congress could have moved to restrict the scope of Ark with another Amendment. They didn't. The Supreme Court could have narrowed their decision in the years subsequent to the enactment of restrictive immigration laws. They haven't. So, we are where we are today.