For you to be correct about the effective date of the law in regards to the child of an unwed mother then the SC is wrong in its recitation of the history of the laws on unwed mothers http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1060.ZD.html, and the statute itself is wrong in referring to 1952 and the history that only specified a reference to 1409 (a) was merely an oversight and it should have referred to 1409 (c) as well.
Did you even read the post regarding the history of the law?
When I do tax research, I never rely simply on the current state of the law. I want to understand where it comes from and where it is going. This case does precisely that and it demonstrates that the unwed mother section predated the 1952 act, that it had much to do with womens suffrage movement and that it was not amended by 1986 legislation.
Extract from case:
In 1986, however, Congress added further gender-based differentials. ..... The requirements for a child of a United States citizen mother remained the same; such a child obtained the mother’s nationality if the mother had resided in the United States or its territorial possessions for at least a year before the child’s birth...
Did you even read the post regarding the history of the law?
Not only did I read the post on the history, more important, I read all the Public Laws and searched down their effective dates. I gave you the effective date clause for all the amendments to Sec. 1409 and it looks fairly clear to me.
I have never to my knowledge anywhere suggested that the unwed mother clauses originated in 1952 or 1986 because I think it is clear on their face they did not. To the contrary, I think the material change to Sec. 1409(c) in 86 and 88 is only to the date.
Which statute have I misread? Which Public Law doesn't fit with my description? Where (in what statute or Pub.L.) is the effective date of the modifications to (c) made by the 1986 or 1988 acts?
I don't think moving back the operation of the statute does much violence to the fundamental issue here--if he was born offshore and was illegitimate, he wasn't a citizen when he was born because the statute didn't exist in that form on that date; he still flunks the natural born test. To get to citizenship, he needs to reverse the record of marriage of his parents.
I suspect the latter would be difficult to do because I now believe it will turn out that they were married in Kenya where having more than one wife was not a problem.
And I continue to think my reading of the effective dates is probably correct because the LawLink description of the law posted above says the same thing. Both of us might be incorrect--I don't see where.
What part of what statute conflicts?