And i know what case ur referring to, Wong Kim Ark v US. Not only was that a godawful decision, but the only US law precedent it was based off of was Chief Justice Marshall in an opinion written in 1812 with "it is obvious that anyone present on U.S. soil is subject to the complete and total jurisdiction of the US" despite that not being plainly obvious as even at the time the British Crown held a standard of perpetual allegiance, wherein anyone allegiant to the Crown was permanently allegiant and could not renounce being subject to it. And maintained their jurisdiction trumped all other jurisdictions. rd also matters because 99% of that majority opinion was pulling precedent from english common law despite the US clearly abandoning the whole "permanent allegiance" in British common law by incorporating renouncement of prior allegiances to the naturalization process as well as provisions for rescinding citizenship if a naturalized or natural citizen swore allegiance to another nation.
This also is important to the use of common law because it clearly illustrates the US broke from English common law regarding citizenship, among numerous other things.
Then to throw a wrench even further into this notion that it's settled law, consider Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in 1812, with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in 1963. Wherein the U.S. signed an international treaty that made it international law. This treaty officialized, among many things, diplomatic immunity, and establishing that citizens of nations present in another nation either legally or illegally are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of that nation. Their native nation can even go so far as demand that person, even if a crime has been committed, be released to the custody of that nations consular, with limited exceptions.
So not only was the notion of presence = complete jurisdiction, iffy at best then and more of a jab at the British Crown(war of 1812 hombre), but now it unequivocally and unquestionably per the treaty, is not the case. This treaty btw, is not "optional" it's a binding treaty, much like the geneva conventions, and subjects the US to consequences that are international in scope if violated or not adhered to.
So the only precedent from US law even used to come to that decision no longer applies in any sense, and never really did to begin with anyways. The aforementioned convention just made practices that were the standard for a long time, official under a binding treaty.
