Well, that's the interpretation of it, isn't it?
I mean, it's not like other amendments have been subject to varying degrees of interpretation over the years like say, the 2nd.

But that's the point. What's the varying interpretation?

With other Amendments, there have been disputes over what the terms meant - whether the "right to bear arms" is a personal or collective right, or whether "speech" included false statements. But here, there doesn't seem to be any alternative interpretation. There's no dispute about whether these kids were born in the United States. And there isn't any dispute that they're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I don't think anyone's ready to argue that the parents have any of the jurisdictional exemptions or legal immunities from the enforcement of state or federal laws that diplomats or members of sovereign native tribes enjoy.

So other than not wanting the Amendment to say what it says, what's the interpretation being advanced here?