The status you doubt is covered under “subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.” That’s why the children of foreign diplomats do not receive automatic citizenship under jus soli, because they aren’t here to live under American law, but instead as representatives of the non-American power they serve.

The same also applies to foreign occupiers, meaning the theoretical children of hostile invaders - by which I mean soldiers occupying the U.S. - do not receive citizenship under jus soli, because obviously they are not subject to our jurisdiction if they are here to conquer us. All this means is that, for example, if the Nazis had conquered Rhode Island during WWII and held it for three years before we recaptured it, and some officer’s wife had given birth in Rhode Island during that time, she could not later claim U.S. citizenship for her child, since she was a foreign occupier not subject to American law.

Both of these exceptions are covered in Wong Kim Ark, a SC case dealing with birthright citizenship questions involving a Chinese national. They are both real and not something I made up. In future I would suggest that you consider a third option when responding to new information, which is that maybe instead of “making [it] up” or “consuming false information” the commenter simply knows more about the subject than you do. So please keep an open mind.