You call it character assassination because your guilt by association is evident. The Frankist effort to collectivize property and destroy citizenship and sovereignty in this country for the pleasure of a morally and politically corrupt elite goes back to before its founding. Conkling and Bingham's efforts were merely actions of witless and craven agents. So it's not character assassination to show a corrupt process in action, one that you obviously support. It's not character assassination to quote two chief justices on why you are wrong, one of whom was contemporary with the drafting and ratification of the 14th Amendment. Still, it's fun to see you twist and shuffle now that you know how weak your case really is.
The entire substance of the argument hinges on Senator Howard's contention
No, it hinges on the contemporary legal definition of the word "subject" and its consequences at the time the Amendment was drafted and ratified. You lose there, so you omit any comment. That's dishonest spin, not debate. See: "shuffle."
The concrete discussions that took place regarded Chinese immigrants who, at that time, were indeed foreigners and their children were also foreigners because - by formal treaty - Chinese subjects born in the USA retained their Chinese nationality as a condition of the Chinese Emperor permitting the emigration of Chinese subjects.
Which elevates US v. Wong Kim Ark to a legal travesty, as Fuller makes eminently clear. It's almost as bad as Bridges v. Wixon. Your citation of the particulars of the case ignore the point that Fuller deals with the question in principle and on topic. You may believe that it is extraneous dicta, but it is both applicable to the case and stands on its legal and political reason.
I will point out that at the time of the 14A debates in Congress non-citizen subjects of the British crown from Ireland were having children who grew up as US citizens.
This is your strongest precedent, but it's precedent without statutory support, as if that somehow trumps the Constitution. It relies upon the claim, "We got away with it for a long time and elected officials didn't do anything about it. So we say it's legal," which is blatantly subjectivist flouting of the rule of law, almost Sabbatean in its arrogance.
Empty verbiage. You like listening to yourself blather.
it hinges on the contemporary legal definition of the word "subject"
If that's the case, then the children of foreigners are clearly subject to US jurisdiction.
You seem to be confused between "subject" in its jurisdictional sense and "subject" as used to describe citizens of monarchies.
Which elevates US v. Wong Kim Ark to a legal travesty
Not at all. The 14A guarantees to all US persons the right of equal protection of the laws.
The treaty with China, which was signed before the passage of the 14A, asserted the Chinese Emperor's right to execute any Chinese person who refused his allegiance.
Therefore, the deportation of Wong Kim Ark was tantamount to a death sentence being imposed on Ark by the state of California, a state which had considered him a legal resident if not a citizen his entire life.
The court ruled justly.
It relies upon the claim, "We got away with it for a long time and elected officials didn't do anything about it. So we say it's legal," which is blatantly subjectivist flouting of the rule of law, almost Sabbatean in its arrogance.
Yawn. Let's tone it down a notch, shall we?
The issue is not one of "getting away with it" - it is one of relying on common law when there is no specific legislation to the contrary.
If the 14A has wished to substitute a new definition of jurisdiction to replace the old common law one, it would have had to have specifically done so. It did not.