The operative phrase in the 14th Amendment is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
One CANNOT be "under the jurisdiction" if one IS NOT known to be IN the jurisdiction.
Calvin's Case [1607], upon which the Wong Kim Ark Case [1898] heavily cited, is VERY EXPLICIT that "enemies" could very well secret themselves and create havoc within the realm. It alluded to what the Greeks did to Troy using the Trojan Horse.
And, "enemies" DID NOT have to be from a country in a declared state of war with the realm. They included strangers who surepticiously resided within the realm WITHOUT the explicit permission of the Sovreign. That is, the Sovreign DID NOT know they were there.
Per Common Law, ANY child born to such an "enemy" WAS NOT a "natural-born subject" ...
“if one IS NOT known to be IN the jurisdiction.”
Which would seem to be any birth which is filed and acknowledged would be accompanied with ‘jurisdiction thereof’ over the child.
“And, “enemies” DID NOT have to be from a country in a declared state of war with the realm. They included strangers who surepticiously resided within the realm WITHOUT the explicit permission of the Sovreign. That is, the Sovreign DID NOT know they were there.”
Does it apply to allies, such as Mexico?
“Per Common Law, ANY child born to such an “enemy” WAS NOT a ‘natural-born subject’ “
Again, the law at present disagrees with you, stating only that one who is born in America and resides in America for the greater portion of their life sufficient to maintain residency is considered to be ‘natural born subject’. Provided that they do not later recant their citizenship by accepting the citizenship of another country.
However, that’s not the argument at present. There’s a difference between ‘natural born subject’, and between ‘citizen’. Citizenship can be acquired through other means.