Replies

that recipients of Student Visas had status of "non-immigrants" and "aliens" relative to the US, as they were required to retain their foreign residence and foreign jurisdiction. (As evidence, these terms appear on immigration service documents in the 1950's and early 1960's).

Your purported "quote” evidences neither link nor citation of source. When you are done playing your game of hide the ball, a discussion may ensue.

As “evidence”, you did not provide your so-called “evidence.” Aliens on a student visa are aliens. What a discovery.

The alleged anonymous “quote” says nothing about children who may be born within the territory of the United States. Presumably a newborn baby is not a recipient of a student visa. To the extent that you assume this could strike down any portion of the U.S. Constitution, you are mistaken.

Your purported “quote” that, “they were required to retain their foreign residence and foreign jurisdiction.,” is nonsense. The only aliens in the United States not subject to its jurisdiction, are accredited diplomats and their families, or foreign dignitaries/royalty and their families. You imagine foreign students are immune from U.S. law as are accredited foreign ambassadors. That concept is insane.

In contrast, in order to accept your argument, you would have to verify that the writers of the 1952 act intended for children of Student Visa recipients to be considered as US citizens who were eligible for the US presidency.

Your argument is brain dead. It assumes that the parentage of a child, born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is determinative of birth citizenship status. Only in cases where the child born in the USA enjoys diplomatic immunity via a parent is parentage relevant.

U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment] “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....”

Which part of that do you not understand?

In which words of that do you find anything about parents?

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html

8 FAM 301

d. "Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States": All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:
(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;
(2) The Court also concluded that: "The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States." Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.

"Your purported “quote” that, “they were required to retain their foreign residence and foreign jurisdiction.,” is nonsense. The only aliens in the United States not subject to its jurisdiction, are accredited diplomats and their families, or foreign dignitaries/royalty and their families. You imagine foreign students are immune from U.S. law as are accredited foreign ambassadors. That concept is insane."

The definition of "jurisdiction" in the 14th amendment meant "political jurisdiction" (also rephrased as "allegiance") in Elk v. Wilkins of 1884.

"This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."

A Student Visa recipient retained their foreign residence and allegiance, as the legislative intent of their admission was for study on a temporary basis (rather than to illegally have an "anchor baby" in the US).

This is what is missing from your analysis, and is why your retort makes no sense. You are substituting a definition which supposes that receiving a parking ticket might make an alien a US citizen.