That's characteristic.
So here's the questions, Sleepy:
1) Is the kid a citizen, yes or no?
2) If federal courts have jurisdiction over everyone here except a couple hundred or so "foreign sovereigns", then why would the Congress in 1868 have gone to the trouble of adding the statement "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Hmmm? Do you really think they needed to reiterate the concept of diplomatic immunity in an Amendment to the Constitution?
You're a classic Leftist. You make an untenable conclusion and simply insist on it over and over again hoping that no one will expose what's obvious: you never answer the questions or logic which prove you wrong.
You've been given multiple answers to all your inane assertions, and you simply ignore them, and go back to parroting your original line.
Answer the questions, Sleepy. And read the brief.
Yes I did.
I cite myself verbatim from post 116:
Under the law he is a citizen.
If you are going to respond to my posts without reading them, you are merely wasting time - you aren't making any valid points.