Unfortunately, the Court, in Kim Wong Ark did not take Sen. Howard’s postscript into account.
It could be the parents were here legally. - Tom
In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth [20]. Consequently, the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen father cannot be a natural born
So we have constantly been told, but this isn't accurate. The Court emphasized heavily on residency as being a necessity in acquiring citizenship.
Besides that, the Chief Author John Bingham made the point much more clearly. You can read what he said in the tagline I have been using for the last 8 years or so.