“The US does not have sole claim to those kids and those kids can (and do) eagerly claim their foreign citizenship as well as their US citizenship. I fail to see how something this simple completely escapes those in black-robes who “think they know better”
“Under the sovereignty” doesn’t mean sole claim. If that were true, a US citizen couldn’t have a second citizenship. It means under the jurisdiction of the laws of the US. Every tourist, businessman and illegal alien who’s here from another country is under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the US while he’s here.
>>...“Under the sovereignty” doesn’t mean sole claim. If that were true, a US citizen couldn’t have a second citizenship...<<
Perhaps it was awkwardly phrased — to be clear, my intent was that the US could not claim *sole* sovereign jurisdiction **regarding a newborn’s citizenship** simply because, by pure accident of birth, they happened to be born on US soil. The country(s) of the child’s parent(s), if they are not citizens of the child’s country of birth, will usually have some say in the matter of the child’s citizenship.
It is amusing to watch someone like you attempt to explain to us the meaning of your understanding of bad law.
Prior to 1922, it was not POSSIBLE to have a dual citizen offspring. Also, Indians were under the jurisdiction, but were not allowed to become citizens. Does believing in a weird dichotomy hurt much?