I'm sorry, but play law simply doesn't count.<quoted text>
An individual born of two U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil is, indeed under the "complete" jurisdiction of the U.S. Foreign parents, not so much as the child's allegiance is with that of his father's homeland. Are you really so stupid as to think, anyone born on U.S. soil is under the "complete" jurisdiction of the U.S.? If that were the case this country would have been overtaken long ago. Absolutely moronic.
As Justice Field explained, in the Look Tin Sing opinion, "The jurisdiction over these latter must at the time be both actual and exclusive." (That means complete jurisdiction, birfoon.)
In US v. Ark, the USSC also noted that jurisdiction must be "complete" for a person to be born a citizen under the 14th Amendment. In quoting Elk v. Wilkings the Court observed that such person must be "completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance’."
Play law doesn't count. Both Wong Kim Ark and Look Tin Sing were understood to be COMPLETELY under the jurisdiction of the United States at birth.
Sorry, play law simply doesn't count.
Sorry, birfoon play law doesn't count.
Justice Stephen Field explained quite succinctly:
“Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment.” In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed. Rep. 905, 906 (C.C Cal, 1884).