Replies

All these cases will fail because they all fail to bring to the table the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins SCOTUS ruling that ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ means subject to the complete jurisdiction, both political as well as physical. Born “IN”, naturalized “IN”. Not until Cruz returned to the US and remained here for the proper number of years as the law requires, was Cruz's citizenship perfected.

14th Amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized, “IN” the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

Elk v. Wilkins (1884)

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which...

“No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)...

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...

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”...

“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”…Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.