In that CONTEXT, nobody ever said differently.
You can't possibly be serious. How on earth did you miss, "Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
If the intent instead was to exclude only anyone "owing allegiance to an Indian Nation," they would have said that. They didn't. The exact stipulation is:
"Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
U.S. Secretaries of State understood that. An International Arbitrator understood that. And that was shortly AFTER the debates and ratification took place. They knew EXACTLY what it meant.
I didn't "miss" it. I READ THE FREAKING DEBATES TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY MEANT BY THE TERM.
I would suggest that you do the same.
It is clear from the discussion entire debates that the people they meant to exclude by those words were Indians in tribes.
It is equally clear that they did NOT intend to exclude children of resident aliens, that they regarded those people born here as United States citizens, and that they considered they had ALWAYS been born citizens.
You are making your arguments from your own ignorance of the topic, imagining that you know something about it, when you don't. You read the words, and you say, "Oh, HERE'S what they meant by that."
BUT YOU APPARENTLY HAVEN'T FREAKING READ THE ENTIRE DEBATES, so your opinion isn't worth much.
Of course, even if you DID read the entire debates, every sign is that you just want the law to mean what YOU want it to mean, and don't care what it really said, and don't care what they actually meant by the phrase.
So it probably wouldn't make any difference if you read the debates anyway. Because you show every sign of being a straightforward denialist.
So either way, your opinion isn't worth much. Because as far as I can tell, you're simply not interested in reality.