I have no doubt that many cases, including Wong Kim Ark, relied on English common law -- where there was a king who wanted to expand his kingdom by essentially conscripting anyone born on the kingdom's soil as a loyal subject who bore allegiance to the king. SCOTUS going to revisit that reliance?

I'm not using the case as judicial precedent of a reliance on common law. I'm using to show the common understanding of the CC's text, an originalist argument. Legislative history can be troublesome bc not all legislators shared the same purpose. It can, however, demonstrate a common understanding

of the text of what they are about to vote on. Especially in the context of constitutional text that shouldn't be using highly technical words. It is intended to be understandable to the common reader.

Was the common understanding based on English common law -- incorporating the practice under a king delirious of expanding his kingdom?

Although the author is not an esteemed academic, his analysis of Calvin's Case and how it's principles support denying citizenship to infants born in the US to illegal aliens is, IMO, worth a read.