I see your point, but earlier up in the opinion the court says that anyone born in the territorial US owing immediate allegiance to an Indian tribe (an alien though dependent power) does NOT become an American citizen even if born in the US. If an Indian tribe is a dependent foreign power and can't be born a US citizen simply by being born in the geographic US, how can anyone argue that the child of an independent and alien power (i.e. foreign nation) can claim US citizenship by simply being born in the US? IMHO, such a conclusion cannot logically follow from this court opinion. The court case clearly states that geographic location of birth does guarantee citizenship to anyone if they are the child of foreign citizens. For easier reference here is the quote from that court case cited again below.
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign governmentborn within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
By the way, on a slight tangent the two authors of the 14th amendment had the following to say about the meaning of the citizenship clause:Sen Jacob Howards author of the Citizenship clause said this when introducing the amendment in the Senate:
[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
The other co-author of the 14th amendment in the House said:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."
The Elk case held he was NOT a citizen because he was born on an Indian reservation which is NOT subject to the full jurisdiction of the US. How does that apply to a person born in a public hospital in, say, downtown Seattle?
how can anyone argue that the child of an independent and alien power (i.e. foreign nation) can claim US citizenship by simply being born in the US?
Because it's what the 14th Amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
If you are born in the United States, and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (not an ambassador or other legally-exempted individual), then you are a citizen. There should be no argument at all about this.
There is only ONE way to NOT get citizenship when you're born on US soil, and that is to not be under the jurisdiction of the United States. So who is exempted from the laws of the United States, when present here? Who does not fall under US jurisdiction?
Essentially, the only way a person born here (not to an ambassador or other foreign government official) is NOT a citizen by birth is they can, somehow, not be subject to US law. That's the only way out.
So, make the case for who that person would be. Who is not an ambassador and not subject to US laws on US soil?