The proper way to handle Wong Kim Ark is to note that the question of citizenship for children of legal transients (no domicile), and those in the country illegally (whether domiciled or not) were not before the court, so whatever can be implied from language in Wong Kim Ark should not be taken as the rule of law for children of transients and those in the country illegally.
Wong Kim Ark is a long case, contains many statements, and is one of those cases that lends itself to support just about any proposition that GRANTS citizenship, depending on how one cherry-picks among the statements.
“those in the country illegally (whether domiciled or not)”
This comment and others you made indicate you didn’t even read this essay by Eastman.
First, the ‘question of birthright citizenship was not before the court’ in Wong Kim Ark. Then the ‘question of birthright citizenship was not before the court’ in Plyler v. Doe. And yet, Brennan places a deceitful citation in a footnote of the later and the liberal establishment uses it as a false basis for decades of pro “anchor baby” regulations.
Sometimes footnotes are given full force as precedents and sometimes they are not.
I'm glad I'm not a lawyer! The courts are lawless.