I might also add that you could argue that “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation” could apply to any illegal entry into our country.
One can argue it (and I've seen some try), but the argument misses the mark.
The birth-subject (citizen) rule of the common law was predicated on jurisdiction and allegiance. The reason children born in an area then controlled by an occupying force fell outside the normal rule is that "to be a subject born" the child had to be born owing allegiance to the sovereign. The sovereign doesn't exercise jurisdiction over an area when that area has been conquered by an invading force. So the child born there is deemed to owe no allegiance to that sovereign.
Unless a horde of illegals seize control of an entire U.S. city or in some way divest the U.S. of jurisdiction over an area, the "hostile invader" comparison misses fails.