Conness wasn't an author of the amendment, and was an immigration advocate as part of a Machiavellian strategy to lock out the Democrats in Reconstruction-era America. I agree with you, though, there certainly were other opinions on what those words meant, and the actual author doesn't do himself any favors by trying to tread right on the line to ensure the amendment passed. In any case, SCOTUS will eventually weigh in, and probably just settle the question, at least for now. It's a pity that the argument is about just the one phrase, because the arguments about the wisdom of Jus Soli policies are much more interesting.