"It excludes more than that. It excludes foreigners, aliens and Indians as well as ambassadors."Foreigners and aliens in the country legally are POSITIVELY subject to the jurisdiction of US laws (unless they are in San Francisco). There's a reasonable argument that illegal aliens are a different entity, but they are still within the *jurisdiction* of US laws. So there is still a reasonable claim for the children of illegal aliens being natural born citizens. Which is how they are treated. (I agree a Constitutional amendment is justified although I doubt we'll get it.) Indians are not exactly on US soil, and so, yes, they were not natural born at the time of this amendment UNTIL the US finally naturalized all of them. Now they are. AMBASSADORS are not subject to the jurdiction of US laws.
"You just admitted that [the US government recognizes the citizenship claims] with the ambassadors."No it does not. You are confused, but you wouldn't be if you would bother yourself to read "US v Wong Kim Ark" which I have conveniently posted a link to. The Court addressed this issue. IT IS DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM ENGLISH COMMON LAW. The children of ambassadors are not within the jurisdiction of US laws at birth, so they are not natural born citizens...nor naturalized citizens either. I reiterate: The reason children of ambassadors born in the US are not natural born US citizens has NOTHING to do with the competing claim of citizenship from their parents' country. NOTHING whatsoever. That is not an issue for US citizenship for anybody.
You are having difficulty following my argument and I’m sure that is partly my fault. Let me try to get there a different way: A Saudi Ambassador knocks up an American girl on US soil, what sort of citizenship will the child be born with?