I think there's nothing in the historical record to support the implicit argument that the people who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment intended for it to legitimize "anchor babies" and frustrate immigration control.
There's "original intent" and then there's "textualism". I belive in original intent. You apparently believe in textualism without any consideration of intent or context.
You submit your interpretation is more "conservative" than mine. Explain why your textualist interpretation is more "conservative" than an original intent interpretation.
The Supreme Court that decided this issue in 1899 was entirely appointed by Republicans, and they found against your reading. “Not under the jurisdiction of the US” means diplomats’ kids under immunity and nobody else.
You’re wanting A to read B because you like B better. A is correct.