1.  The "diplomatic immunity" question is pretty ridiculous, I agree, but that is intentionally so to highlight what I see as the ridiculous logical implication of not considering illegal immigrants to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.  And whether my question is ridiculous or not actually has nothing to do with whether it's a Gish Gallop as I understand the term.  How do you define it?  Also, I firmly believed at the time that a reasonably careful reader could reasonably be expected to recognize that the four questions were actually two two-part questions, as I illustrated in my last post; but you seem to have dismissed this by saying I asked you to "plug up 4 holes" (not 2 holes as would be implied if you agreed with my reply) and yet you didn't tell me you thought my interpretation was asking too much of the reader or otherwise explain any objection to what I said.  Except, that is, to the claim that "upon cursory glance" I appeared to be shotgunning my questions.  To that I can only say that you should probably take a second look beyond cursory glances before accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty. 

Let me move my reply to your related comment from (2) up here.  Your accusation of Gish Galloping for asking you more than one question at a time was frankly bizarre to me and caught me completely off guard, so I was defensive when I noticed that I was asking you more than one question in that spot.  I saw it as nothing more than getting out in front of an objection that you had already made in what seemed to me to be similar circumstances (although clearly I'm missing something), and to the extent that it came off as patronizing I regret that it did so.  To the extent that it came across as aggressively slapping down an argument you could potentially have had no intention of even making ... under the circumstances (it had already happened before) I don't feel a particular need to apologize for that one. 

2.  I do not have professional expertise in 19th century English but I do have extensive familiarity with grammar, including antiquated grammar and specifically including the common usage of commas.  (Commas were much more liberally used in those days, I've noticed, compared to most contemporary writing.)  As far as I'm concerned, 19th century comma usage mostly follows the same rules as used today—two main differences being, first, that many commas are optional and they were far more commonly included; and, second, that "pause-for-breath" commas (with no other grammatical purpose) were considered correct where today I believe they are considered incorrect.  There are a few exceptions where commas were inserted back then in other places that I would consider it to be incorrect usage today, but I don't see the commas in Howard's quote to be consistent with those usages that I am familiar with.  Skipping to your "but what about the Indians" point, I think you're flat-out wrong there, since according to my argument in (3) they weren't considered to have been born in the US proper and therefore were excluded by his condition "born in the US". 

Backtracking to your other point, let me boil it down to this simple question:  if you reject my interpretation of his commas, do you have an alternative interpretation?  If so, what is it?  If not, then on what basis are you rejecting my interpretation? 

3.  I think you've completely missed my point.  The American Indians and Puerto Ricans granted citizenship by legislation were not on incorporated US territory.  That is why they were not already given citizenship by the 14th amendment.  Not all land controlled by the US is the same:  there are states, there are incorporated territories, there are unincorporated territories, and there are American Indian reservations.  The differences between these are not always trivial:  Wikipedia sez "Article III [of the Constitution] has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland".  Think about that:  Article III, the part that sets up the court system, doesn't apply to courts in unincorporated territories!  Surely this must convince you that it's at least plausible that there would also be differences in whether and how the amendments are applied to the same areas?  And, furthermore, wouldn't you agree that these differences in enforcement do not creep back to the states themselves?  [edit:  in other words, Article III not applying to unincorporated territories doesn't mean that the government can disregard Article III in the states.] 

If an illegal immigrant gives birth on land within an actual state of the US or in an incorporated territory, that child is certainly a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment.  [edit:  If the same child was born on the incorporated territory of Palmyra Atoll, the same would be true.]  However, if the same child was born in the unincorporated territory of Jarvis Island, that child would not be a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment.  If the same child was born in the unincorporated territory of Puerto Rico, it would not be a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, but it would be (as far as I know) by virtue of legislation passed by Congress. 

Legislation is not necessary for anyone covered by the 14th amendment.  Puerto Ricans and American Indians were not covered by the 14th amendment.  Children who are born to any parents whatsoever on the soil of an actual state (and not an American Indian reservation) of the United States, or an incorporated territory [edit:  exclusively the Palmyra Atoll, AFAIK], are covered by the 14th amendment.  For anyone covered by the 14th amendment, legislation short of constitutional amendment is legally powerless to strip them of the citizenship granted by it, and the same goes for any executive action. 

However, Congress could pass a law that babies born to illegal immigrants in Puerto Rico or on American Indian reservations are not citizens.  And it might be possible for an executive order to have some effect there, though I doubt the executive branch can legally countermand the legislative branch's explicit will in this case. 

Bar our other conversation about procedure, this is really what I would want to discuss with you. In particular, I want to know what you think would be Trump's argument that birthright citizenship isn't in the 14th Amendment in light of the Wong Kim Ark case. You are one of the few that has said you think this is what he is arguing and I would be very curious to know your legal reasoning behind that, despite saying it is a difficult argument to make. Not trying to put you on the spot, my apologies, but frankly curious.

Live in a country your entire life, 'claim citizenship in a country you have no real connection to.'

Sure that makes sense. /s

I believe several senators who helped draft the 14th amendment according to documents clearly said that babies born in the USA to illegal immigrants would not be citizens.

Not being an expert of Originalism and doing a lot of research one thing is clear, it differs a lot depending on which group you happen to look at.  Something that fluid should never be a means to determine how the constitution should be interpreted.  My reasoning is that it will always be different depending on who is in power and thus subject to much change.  Also, trying to figure out what the founders were thinking about at that time leaves to much theory in interpretation unless there are specific text that can be reference to make it clear.

In the case between US VS Wong Kim Ark, citizenship is undefined in US law.  To decide that case, the Supreme court used the English Common Law to define the clause of jurisdiction and the 14 amendment concerning that clause.

[a]liens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English sovereign; and therefore, every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of any alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

After doing more research on the US VS Wong Kim Ark case it seems that its already a done deal.  The courts gave an interpretation of "Jurisdiction" and that citizenship was covered via jus Soli ".  Your statement that Trump is claiming that birthright citizenship isn't in the constitution has already gone to the SC and trying to use the "jurisdiction" part was given meaning which invalidates his whole argument. 

When you find that document please post it.  I know I have looked on plenty of conservative sites and even they do not have any such statement.

Your assessment is correct. Something we need to be aware of is that immigration policy at the time of the drafting of the 14th Amendment was extraordinarily different than current policy. For the most part, America operated with a policy of open borders until the early 20th century. And the system of visas didn't come around til the 1920s I believe. The formal laws that exist today wasn't drafted until 1952 in the INA.

So when I hear people talk about what the drafters of the 14th amendment thought in relation to illegal immigration, that is frankly asking the wrong type of question. The Chinese Exclusion acts were passed after the 14th Amendment which is the first major regulation of immigration in the US. It doesn't mean that there wasn't people that the US wanted to exclude before the Chinese Exclusion act, but there wasn't an extensive legal system in place to do it. 

https://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

I can certainly understand things happening in your life that make you want to discontinue such a discussion.  So I'll try to keep it brief and won't be too disappointed if you don't respond. 

TL;DR:  I answered your post below but I might have found a question that bypasses the whole thing!  Here goes:  In addition to using the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", the 14th amendment also says no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  In your eyes, is a person within a state's jurisdiction, generally speaking, subject to the jurisdiction of that state? 

1.  I have to say I don't think you did go by the standard definition, which is attempting to overwhelm the opponent with so many different arguments that they can't address everything.  In the first post I asked four simple questions, some of which were clearly interrelated (thus not different arguments demanding separate counterpoints).  But you've withdrawn the claim so I guess the point is moot. 

2.  Not claiming ambassadors' children as citizens (and subjects) strikes me as a pretty important distinction to make, even if it's a small section of the population.  Also, this was widely seen as being functionally the same as the earlier act of Congress specifying "excluding Indians not taxed", with "not taxed" alluding to being part of the tribal/reservation system instead of the United States proper.  So in that interpretation this clause indeed covered a significant portion of the population. 

Your interpretation of “foreigners, aliens, [those] who…” is still not a list.  It would have to be “foreigners, aliens, [OR those] who…”.  In fact, if your position was correct, I would surmise it would be due to Howard repeating the "who" along with omitting the "or":  "persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to ...".  That's not to say I find this convincing.  But assuming for the sake of argument that that was the case, what distinction do you believe Howard was drawing between "foreigners" and "aliens"?  I would strongly reject a claim that Howard was giving a two part list consisting of "foreigners [i.e.] aliens" and "[those] who belong to etc." without much stronger evidence. 

Regarding Trumbull, I am not sure what records of his words you allude to, but Wikipedia seems to disagree:  "However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Trumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no senator offered a contrary opinion."  I can't square this with your implying that you are on the same page as Trumbull when you say " If there’s a specific caste of children born of parents here legally that can be denied citizenship it stands to reason such denial would apply to any children born of parents here illegally."  I presume you agree with me that illegal immigrants are generally not ambassadors.  If you come back then I would appreciate it if you directed me to the quotes you found so persuasive, assuming it wasn't merely what you stated here (see below).  If you don't, I may try to hunt it down—Wikipedia isn't perfect, though it doesn't often get black-and-white questions of simple fact wrong. 

And further regarding "complete jurisdiction", I ask you this:  in what sense does a newborn child no matter its parentage owe allegiance to a foreign country?  Does the question of whether the child is a citizen hinge on whether the foreign country lays claim to it?  Also, I would contrast your interpretation of "complete jurisdiction" against the fact that no one to my knowledge has ever tried to deny that Catholics are citizens solely on account of their allegiance to the Pope, even when anti-Catholic sentiment in this country was extremely high. 

3.  You said earlier, "So there's some interesting nuances worth considering which I appreciate [...]  But even with your statements considered, there's a simple breakdown in this:"

I took this to mean, "You have some interesting information there, but even if it's correct your position is still wrong because:  (the stuff you said)"  (Specifically I took "breakdown" to mean "this is where your argument breaks down".)

So then I naturally came back with, "no, if my interesting information was correct then the points you made don't undermine my position AT ALL because blah blah blah" 

I could believe that I misinterpreted your meaning.  If so, please let me know what you were actually trying to say with "But even with your statements considered, there's a simple breakdown in this:". 

My reasoning holds perfectly presuming the accuracy of my claims about the applicability of constitutional provisions within various types of U.S. possessions.  The point of contention seems to me to revolve around the accuracy of those claims, not the logic I applied afterwards.  If you think the logic itself deriving from "state, inc. terr.=14th yes; uninc. terr, indian land=14th no" then I've misinterpreted the situation again and please point out specifically where the logic is wrong.  If you are disagreeing with my fact claims then I would like you to elaborate on what you mean by "a more storied history of how the federal government began to have a more roundly-implemented immigration apparatus over time."

P.S.  Please note:  DACA is a complete red herring.  An infant born in Mexico and carried over the border is not the same as an infant that was born on this side of the border.  You weren't thinking this through. 

The following is violating the "keep it short" rule that I tried—but, let's be honest, failed—to abide by earlier. But whenever you are feeling up to it in the future, I'm actually increasingly interested in what led you to have these thoughts about Sen. Trumbull: "And perhaps I’m too “poisoned” by other outside factors that I’ve stated before (such as the context surrounding it, other lawmakers deliberations such as Sen. Trumbull, and more) but I see “foreigners, aliens, [those] who…” in this respect."

As it happens, I came across a very interesting law journal article on the topic of Trumbull's work on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which is widely seen as being equivalent in intent to the 14th Amendment regarding birthright citizenship, including in the views of the members of Congress at that time. (Most, certainly; all, as far as I am aware.)

Trumbull wrote of the bill, "The Bill declares 'all persons' born of parents domiciled in the United States, except untaxed Indians, to be citizens of the United States."

And what does "domiciled" mean, exactly? The article explains in detail. Two quotes that together work as a summary follow:
"In Justice Story's words, domicile is "where [a person] has his true, fixed, permanent home ... to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning"; it is "that place ...in which [a person's] habitation is fixed, without any present intention of moving therefrom."
"Judges evaluating domicile thus asked two questions. First, is a person living in a particular place? Second, does the evidence suggest he or she intends to keep living there indefinitely? If both answers were yes, then the person had domicile in that place."
(A consensual relationship between that person and the government of that place was not required or relevant to the question of domicile. But please note that ambassadors would not be expected to view their embassy as their "true, fixed, permanent home" as I would interpret the phrase.)
[edit:  forgot the link.]

[edit:  I have a confession:  I wrote up the above before I'd finished the article.  Here's Trumbull talking about the actual Amendment itself:  Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in any just sense? They are not subject to our jurisdiction. We do not exercise jurisdiction over them. It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens. 

[I like to imagine he then dropped a mic, because I honestly see that as pretty damn conclusive that Trumbull saw "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same way I interpret it, though I'd be very, very interested to hear why you still disagree, if you do still disagree, when you have the time and concentration to spend on it.]