Checked.
What us the point your missing is that there are other arguable positions and interpretations which is why this law had to be sent up to the supreme Court.
The Supreme Court itself was divided 6-2.
The dissenting votes argued against this interpretation, arguing that the law ALSO Meant no other country could claim citizenship of the individual bu inheriting their citizenship from a parent.
That’s not the only argument against.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#:~:text=Wong%20Kim%20Ark%2C%20the%20United,as%20a%20practical%20matter%2C%20the
Another is that ‘natural born’ and ‘natural born citizen’ mean different things, and that surely location isn’t enough to meet the test of citizenship to vacationing tourists passing through.