“Sole U.S. jurisdiction was a core requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to emancipated slaves and their descendants, because they were, and have always been, under sole U.S. jurisdiction.
“For sake of argument, if the 14th Amendment had redefined “natural born citizen” to mean anyone “born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (where “jurisdiction” is understood to mean sole U.S. jurisdiction), Obama would still fail to meet the natural born citizen requirement. Here’s why...
“On his web site, Obama claims that his father was a British subject and that, in 1961, the citizenship status of children of British subjects was “governed” (that’s Obama’s word) by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Thus Obama’s citizenship status, at birth, was “governed” by British law, in addition to U.S. law.
“If Obama’s citizenship status at birth was “governed” by the laws of a foreign country, how could he, at birth, be subject to sole U.S. jurisdiction, which is an essential requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship? “
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref08
Since when? The 14th Amendment only says 'subject to the jurisdiction of', nothing about sole jurisdiction. Any person residing in the U.S. is subject to our jurisdiction, with the exception of diplomats or foreign leaders and others not subject to our laws.
Thus Obama’s citizenship status, at birth, was “governed” by British law, in addition to U.S. law.
Which, at worst, would make him a dual citizen. A status rendered moot when his Kenyan citizenship lapsed at age 18. Regardless, nothing in the Constitution or the law says that such people cannot also be natural-born citizens.