Both the cases you cited are completely distinguishable. Inglis v. Trustees doesn’t apply for two reasons (1) it was decided before the 14th Amendment was ratified so it cannot say anything about the meaning of the 14th Amendment. (2) It was about someone who was born in the Colonies and left before the Revolution, never to return. Thus the Court held that the person never became an American Citizen because he had never lived in America - just the British Colonies.
ELk v. Wilkins is more relevant. However, it still does not hold what you think. It is about an American Indian who was born on a reservation and then later renounced his tribal membership and wanted to claim U.S. citizenship. At that time the reservations were treated like foreign countries and were dealt with via treaties not U.S. law. Therefore, he was found not to have been born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
You didn’t finish the analysis of Elk v. Wilkins. The difference between Native Indians and aliens is that Native Indians were located within the borders of the U.S., and aliens were not. Both were subject to foreign jurisdictions; one from a foreign jurisdiction located with the U.S. borders, the other from a foreign jurisdictions located outside the U.S. borders.
it was decided before the 14th Amendment was ratified so it cannot say anything about the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
The 14th amendment was about slaves born on US soil, not immigrants