I don’t think we recognized Japanese sovereignty over the Aleutians. Also, I don’t know whether the Japanese asserted sovereignty over their conquest in the same way that they did over their home islands. So a case could be made that a child born on those islands was still a natural born citizen.
Another interesting sidelight might be the fact that Congress finally granted citizenship to all American Indians in 1924. If you were a Native American born here before 1924, what did that make you? IIRC, citizens of American Samoa still aren’t automatically born US citizens. People made that as an objection to Tulsi Gabbard, but she was a US citizen from birth through her father, who was also born in Samoa, but who had US citizenship through his father.
The glaring fallacy of basing "natural born citizen" on the 14th amendment is the fact that it didn't apply to Indians.
Dichotomies make it a muck of a standard.
Interesting. Sovereignty vs jurisdiction.
“the territory or sphere of activity over which the legal authority of a court or other institution extends:” — that is jurisdiction
During this period of Aleutian occupation by the Japanese, US courts had lost jurisdiction because courts could not exercise authority there.
Sovereignty is the supreme authority over a state or nation-state to self governance.
During this period of occupation, there was no authority to govern those occupied islands, but you’re right, the US likely never recognized loss of sovereignty over those islands. How could they?
But. . . it would not matter. During that period they had lost jurisdiction. So those babies were not born within the jurisdiction of the US.