Good. However there is also the position that even if the treaty had been ratified and in place, he got sufficient due process to comply with international law and the treaty provisions in any event.
The treaty provisions control on the same level of legal authority as the Constitution which provides, in Article VI, Par. 2, "[t]his Constitution . . . and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Of course since he was given the same rights as an Ordinary American, Mexico expected more rights i.e. a consulate visit then your average American would receive in Mexico were the situation reversed.
We didn’t ignore the treaty or his rights we gave him the full protection under the law that any American would have received.
It was a bad example of how this country ignores treaties, since an unratified treaty is non binding.
However the treaty concerning dual citizenship was ratified and the United States is bound to obey it’s conditions and one of those conditions is we must recognize that i a child becomes a citizen in a country that doesn’t allow dual citizenship this country must accept that that child’s US citizenship is lost until He or she reaffirms it at eighteen(+six months) according to the procedures set forth bu the State department according to our laws, and that is why there is such a clause in our laws.
By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties “are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other. As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.The bottom line is that a treaty cannot amend the Constitution. Citizenship specifically given in the 14th amendment cannot be repealed by a treaty with the Hauge....
It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871)
...
In Power Authority of New York v. FPC, 247 F.2d 538 (2d Cir. 1957), a reservation attached by the Senate to a 1950 treaty with Canada was held invalid. The court observed that the reservation was properly not a part of the treaty but that if it were it would still be void as an attempt to circumvent constitutional procedures for enacting amendments to existing federal laws.
...
Justice Black in Reid v. Covert “... It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights—let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition—to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.”
On the other hand, citizenship given through statue can be overridden by a treaty (ie. born overseas).
As for a treaty overriding Congressional acts, the treaty and acts of Congress are on equal footing. When they conflict the one that was passed last is supreme. From another section of the same article:
What happens when a treaty provision and an act of Congress conflict? The answer is, that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and that therefore the one of later date will prevail leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant.