Source: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/18167/the-term-foreign-national-in-us-immigration-law
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:23:10+00:00

Document:
includes stateless people, despite their not holding any foreign nationality.
By contrast, the term foreign national appears nowhere in section 1101, and does not appear to be statutorily defined anywhere else, although it does appear in a few sections of 8 USC. There also appears to be no regulatory interpretation or definition of the term, as it seems to be entirely absent from Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Executive Order 13,769 uses the term alien twice, once echoing the language of the statute being invoked, 8 USC 1182(f), and the term foreign national fourteen times.
Executive Order 13,780 uses the term alien fifteen times, mostly when discussing EO 13,769 or quoting the relevant statute, and it uses the term foreign national 29 times.
Is there any judicial precedent establishing that foreign national is synonymous with alien?
that foreign national includes US dual citizens, since they are also nationals of a foreign state?
that foreign national excludes stateless people, since they are not nationals of any foreign state?
The list in this answer is not comprehensive merely listing some of the leading SCOTUS cases on point, but the approach taken, analyzing the way the term is used in a context specific, case by case approach, rather than trying to ascribe a trans-substantive meaning to it in all contexts is, I believe the correct approach. There are 30 SCOTUS cases that use the term discussing perhaps 15-20 treaties and statutes, and hundreds of circuit court cases that do so.
It turns out that the term foreign national often paraphrases treaty language that is not identical when there is no ambiguity in the case before the court. The EO language is probably merely the product of sloppy drafting since the statute uses the word "alien".
In many contexts where "foreign national" is used to paraphrase the exact treaty language, the term is relevant because it is used in a context where a relationship between the person and their nation is at issue in some respect as in the VCCR below and the Public Vessels Act. So, in those contexts, the term would often exclude "stateless persons". But, there is really no way to know in the absence of context whether dual citizens are or are not intended to be included in the term.
One place that the term "foreign national" is used is Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) which gives a foreign national a right to diplomatic assistance in the criminal justice process. See Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006). The same section of the same treaty was at issue in Torres v. Mullin, 540 U.S. 1035 (2003).
The term was also used in a case discussing the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended by the First War Powers Act of 1941, and Executive Order 9095, as amended, which allowed for an "Alien Property Custodian" to seize property of a foreign national (in this case a German) in connection with World War II. See Silesian-American Corp v. Clark, 332 U.S. 469 (1947). It isn't clear, however, that this case has continuing legal validity and relevance. And, the "foreign national" terminology in this case appears to be a paraphrase of the phrase "enemy or ally of enemy" that appears in the underlying text of the authorizing statute.
The term was used in the case of United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), in which a Mexican citizen was kidnapped in Mexico by U.S. agents and tried in the U.S. on drug trafficking charges without regard to the U.S.-Mexico extradition treaty, which Judge Kennedy uses the term synonymously with "alien" in his concurring opinion in a case involving facts where any definition of the two terms applies.
The term was used in the case of Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988) interpreting the Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965 (Hague Service Convention),  20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638 which governs service of process of foreign nationals to determine if it applies to service of process on foreign nationals within the United States. The treaty language of the Hague Service Convention itself, however, makes no reference at all to the nationality of the person served and depends entirely upon whether the person is served abroad in the territory of a signatory or not. Under the plain language of the treaty itself, a U.S. citizen in France has to be served pursuant to the Hague Service Convention, although a U.S. court would usually be in a better position to compel compliance from its own national than it would be from a foreign national.
VWAG, a corporation established under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, has its place of business in that country. VWoA is a wholly owned subsidiary of VWAG. Schlunk attempted to serve his amended complaint on VWAG by serving VWoA as VWAG's agent.
VWAG filed a special and limited appearance for the purpose of quashing service. VWAG asserted that it could be served only in accordance with the Hague Service Convention, and that Schlunk had not complied with the Convention's requirements.
FWIW, SCOTUS held that the treaty did not apply to service of process within the territory of the country whose courts issued the process.
Prior to 1960, the Suits in Admiralty Act authorized suit against the United States in cases involving vessels owned by, possessed by, or operated by or for the United States, if such suit could have been maintained had the vessel been a private one, and provided further that such vessel was employed as a merchant vessel. In 1960, Congress amended the Act by deleting.the latter proviso. The Public Vessels Act authorizes suit against the United States in cases involving "a public vessel of the United States," but bars such a suit by a foreign national unless it appears that his government [96 S.Ct. 1321] allows a United States national to sue in its courts under similar circumstances. Respondent, a Philippine corporation, alleging jurisdiction under both Acts, sued the United States to recover damages resulting from the sinking of its fishing vessel after a collision with a United States naval destroyer. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that, since the destroyer was a "public vessel of the United States," the suit was governed by the Public Vessels Act, that therefore respondent was subject to that Act's reciprocity provision, and that, since there was no such reciprocity, the suit was barred. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the suit, although involving a public vessel, was maintainable under the Suits in Admiralty Act, as amended in 1960 to delete the "employed as a merchant vessel" proviso, free from the restrictions, including the reciprocity requirement, imposed by the Public Vessels Act.
Held: Claims within the scope of the Public Vessels Act remain subject to its terms after the 1960 amendment to the Suits in Admiralty Act, and, since respondent's claim falls within the Public Vessels Act, the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that that Act's reciprocity provision did not apply.
Here the focus is on the relationship of the foreign national to a home state court which may or may not offer reciprocity. The statute is 46 U.S.C. § 781. The case at issue involved a Philippine corporation owned mostly by Americans, which was held to be Philippine nationality and the reciprocity of Philippine courts applied. Presumably in this case a dual national would count as an American and a stateless person would not.
Is US Immigration policy's per-country quota cap for employment-based immigration illegal?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 781