If that is true then why did Title XXX make a distinction between residing in the U.S. AND jurisdiction of the U.S.? If we take your hairbrain analysis seriously there would be no need because simply residing in the U.S. puts you under the jurisdiction of the U.S.!!
"If that is true then why did Title XXX make a distinction between residing in the U.S. AND jurisdiction of the U.S.? If we take your hairbrain analysis seriously there would be no need because simply residing in the U.S. puts you under the jurisdiction of the U.S.!!"
That last sentence is exactly right.
Even a deportation hearing makes an illegal alien "subject to the jurisdiction of the US." Any foreigner who commits a crime in the US, whether they are from Mexico or Bahrain is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the state where they reside."
My girlfriend is an "anchor baby" US citizen. Her parents came as illegals but they became legal US citizens through President Reagan's 1986 amnesty. Laws change and EVERY foreigner who enters the US, legally or illegally is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the state in which they reside. Until the 14th amendment is revised or revoked, that is the law of the land.
Because there are exceptions, defined by law. Those are the children of diplomats, foreign military, etc. The cases that are cited in the quotes above by the CongressCritters debating the resolution. At the time, but not now, many of the Indian tribes fell into that category as well.
A citizen from a foreign country who has a green card and resides in the US of A is NOT permitted to serve on a jury. Residence is not enough to make someone a citizen.