That in itself disqualifies him from birthright citizenship as the 14th Amendment was written and intended to require "the complete jurisdiction thereof" of the U.S.
Sources: Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull, Senator Howard, originators of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.
Actually, American law presumes that American citizenship prevails for those born in America.
That in itself disqualifies him from birthright citizenship as the 14th Amendment was written and intended to require "the complete jurisdiction thereof" of the U.S. Sources: Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull, Senator Howard, originators of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.
How long will you people keep repeating things that aren't so?
There have been thousands, if not millions, of Americans born here from the founding of our country, that other countries gave citizenship at birth to as well.
I think there was even a freeper here whose grandmother or grandfather was from Italy, and by the laws of Italy that person was born an Italian citizen as well as a US one.
And it doesn't matter one damn bit.
As far as "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof," when Trumbull said those words, who exactly was he talking about?
You never mention that, do you?
Was he talking about the children born here, in American society, of non-citizen parents?
No. ABSOLUTELY NOT.
He was speaking about INDIANS, who had been BORN IN INDIAN TRIBES.
Here's the entire quote:
Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by “complete jurisdiction thereof?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them. If we want to control the Navajoes… Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense?
This is what people who make the kinds of claims you're making do. Take a quote, strip it of its context, and make it say something that IT NEVER SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Trumbull NEVER, EVER said that non-citizens living in our society were not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," and he NEVER, EVER said that the children born here of non-citizen parents were anything other than natural-born US citizens.
In fact, he said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim:
Trumbull: I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?
Cowan: I think not.
Trumbull: I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
Cowan: The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.
Trumbull: If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.
Now he got it slightly wrong: It wasn't under the naturalization laws that such people were born citizens, but under the rule of citizenship that had always prevailed here. It was a matter of definition and of American common law.
But in general, he got it right: the children of immigrants are, and always were, natural born citizens.