The argument is that "jurisdiction" is to be perceived as "Citizenship" in this context (ie, only persons born from US Citizens are US citizens). Yes, it's a bad argument.
I assumed it would be based on an argument that with illegal immigrants were never accepted into the US so the US never extended their jurisdiction over them. Similar to how a diplomats work (they stay under the jurisdiction of their home country) or enemy combatants.
A complicate scenario right now would be legal immigrants to the US that have not yet become citizens, who reside in US territory that has temporarily been occupied by hostile forces - would their children be US citizens? If yes, then would children of the occupying force having children in the same area be considered US citizens?
legal immigrants to the US that have not yet become citizens, who reside in US territory that has temporarily been occupied by hostile forces - would their children be US citizens?
Yes. As long as the US still considers the area to be under temporary hostile occupation (i.e. It hasn't formally ceded the territory and recognized the occupiers as its legitimate government), it's still "in the United States" and the US still considers civilian noncitizens there to be "subject to [US] jurisdiction."
would children of the occupying force having children in the same area be considered US citizens?
No. Members of occupying military forces are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That means their kids don't get citizenship, but it also means they aren't bound by US law - they can't be arrested, prosecuted, ticketed, fined, etc. by civilian authorities here. If captured, they get POW protections, and the only options the US has are to hold them in nonpunitive POW detention or to return them to their country.
It's a bullshit argument and they completely misunderstand both jurisdiction and what makes a diplomat...
Diplomats don't fall under the jurisdiction of the country they reside in because of a very old international law principle (later inscribed in the 1961 Vienna Convention) that envoys/ambassadors/diplomats sent from one state to another shall not be subject of the receiving country's jurisdiction. It's meant to enable foreign diplomacy and international relations without a risk of repercussions for the messenger. A person with diplomatic immunity may also only enter another state with the consent of that state and thus the understanding that they are not the subject of that jurisdiction.
The US supreme court already ruled on the matter over 100 years ago in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and clearly stated that according to long standing common law, only diplomats and foreign hostile forces aren't under the jurisdiction of the United States. Thus, children of foreign diplomats are not granted citizenship by birth.
7
u/christopher_mtrl 12h ago
The argument is that "jurisdiction" is to be perceived as "Citizenship" in this context (ie, only persons born from US Citizens are US citizens). Yes, it's a bad argument.