I don’t want to be negative but the case does not resemble the information you gave
In 1969, Tuan Ahn Nguyen was born in Saigon, Vietnam to Joseph Boulais and a Vietnamese citizen. At age six, Nguyen became a lawful permanent United States resident. At age 22, Nguyen pleaded guilty in a Texas state court to two counts of sexual assault on a child.
Subsequently, the Immigration and and Naturalization Service initiated deportation proceedings against Nguyen. After the Immigration Judge ordered Nguyen, Boulais obtained an order of parentage from a state court.
Dismissing Nguyen’s appeal, the Board of Immigration of Appeals rejected Nguyen’s citizenship claim because he had not complied with 8 USC section 1409(a)’s requirements for one born out of wedlock and abroad to a citizen father and a noncitizen mother.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals rejected Nguyen and Boulais argument that section 1409(a) violates equal protection by providing different rules for attainment of citizenship by children born abroad and out of wedlock depending upon whether the one parent with American citizenship is the mother or the father.
Furthermore the citation you attached is a lawyer’s position paper presented to Congress during one of the many attempts to sway the Congress into changing the Constitution, which they have no authority to do in any case and the position paper is an opinion with no force in law. The only reference to the case you quoted in that opinion paper follows:
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 64-65 (2001): Citizenship statutes requiring certain relationships of
children born abroad to U.S. citizen parent or parents are adopted “... to ensure that the child and the citizen parent have some demonstrated opportunity or potential to develop not just a relationship that is recognized, as a formal matter, by the law, but one that consists of the real, everyday ties that provide a connection between child and citizen parent and, in turn, the United States.”
See also Miller v. United States, 523 U.S. 420, 438-440 (1998) noting the interest of “fostering ties with this country ....”
As is patently obvious this advances the idea that a citizen created by naturalization statutes is the same as a NBC not one iota. Certainly this idea that it doesn’t matter where a woman has her child because its the same born inside or outside the US is not part of this case.
[[As is patently obvious this advances the idea that a citizen created by naturalization statutes is the same as a NBC not one iota.]]
On this we are going to have to disagree and I’ll side with the CSR scholars, who’s main job description is to study case law day in and day out and present DC lawyers and scholars and judges with detailed reports on issues such as this issue of Naturalization and NBC status- I’m also going to have to side with two of the most respected Lawyers on this topic- having studied it for their entire careers- I’m also going to have to side with the recent court cases- SC cases and federal ones that found that there is no difference between a woman who travels abroad, and comes back to the states to have a child, and one who either can’t come back for the birth or chooses not to- I’m also going to have to side with the several court cases challenging Cruz’s eligibility now that have found him eligible- There is no reason for them to be finding this on their own if there is nothing to the idea that NBC includes children born abroad to a us parent- Someone up-thread gave a list of the cases now-
Unless we’re going to claim all those cases, and more to follow- are all presided over by corrupt judges?
Actually the Nyguen case does reflect the status mentioned- the child is no different than that of one who’s mother had a child in the US- the only stipulation being that for unwed parents one must prove paternity and like you say establish the bond for purposes of allegiance- This doesn’t make the stsatute an act of naturalization- but simply clarifies that congress is within it’s right to stipulate stricter requirements for certain situations- and like you mentioned By birth is ‘original’ while At Birth is ‘derivative’ however derivative does not denote less important or as of having less rights- The statute does not grant citizenship- it stipulates what must be done in order for citizenship to be recognized- this might sound like semantics, but it’s a very important distinction, and one that, liek you mentioned about 1409- is important in order to shwo that a bond and allegiance are properly nurtured- whereas if them other is a citizen and she alone brigns the chidl into the world without her donor- then the child automatically assumes the allegiance of the mother citizen as a child is legally bound by the parent’s allegience until the age of 18 when the child can then decide for themselves if they wish to remain a citizen, or to expatriate