[DiogenesLamp]

That is true. However, the key word is “jurisdiction”. An American Airman whose British wife gives birth in a London hospital to baby boy - the boy is subject to the jurisdiction of the US, therefore a citizen at birth, therefore making him nbC.

Well if "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" as mentioned in the 14th amendment gives US Jurisdiction over the children of Illegal Immigrants, than applying the exact same rule in the exact same way gives England "Jurisdiction" over babies born in their country.

Do we use one rule when we apply the concept domestically and another rule when we apply it abroad? Cause I thought the word was supposed to mean the same thing in all cases.

Besides that, i've got an even better argument i'll post in the next message. :)

[Perdogg]

No it does not. The parents would be here illegally which would exclude their children under Section 2 - Children of illegal occupiers of the US would not be.

[gusty]

” than applying the exact same rule in the exact same way gives England “Jurisdiction” over babies born in their country.”

You are right, but forget an important fact. The US does not care if the UK would consider someone a subject of the queen if legally an American citizen at birth, even if born in the UK. For the purposes of American citizenship it is irrelevant. This
was one of the issues that caused the War of 1812.