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.
Babeu was on a helicopter tour of Mexican drug cartel scout locations in caves in the side of mountains throughout the desert about 70 miles inside the U.S. border. Essentially, that means U.S. sovereignty is gone for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of square miles throughout the American southwest.
more tortured logic... and pretty silly, at that