I call you a liar because you are one. Pretty simple, actually. That label isn't being attached to you by a child, but by a thoughtful, reasoning adult. My posts have demonstrated the falsehood in your contentions, yet you persist is setting forth falsehood as though it was truth. That is a liar, and you are doing so deliberately. And., as far as I'm concerned, your remarks to me have the same quality, that is, you are calling me a liar too.
I have ignored ZERO of the contentions you have advanced.
-- the FACT that the Supreme court finds an equivalence between a mother having a child on soil and off soil --
You are stupid, evil, or both to keep this up. It has been pointed out to you, using the exact words from the Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS decision, that this so-called equivalence depends on the statute for existence. You omit that part, deliberately so as to mislead your readers. That is despicable on your part. There are fewer that ten people on this board that I despise, and you are in the top five.
[[That label isn’t being attached to you by a child, but by a thoughtful, reasoning adult.]]
Yeah you keep believing that-
[[My posts have demonstrated the falsehood in your contentions,]]
No sir they did not
[[you are calling me a liar too.]]
No sir- unlike you I don’t call someone who believes something different than I do a liar- As I mentoned, there is
[[There are fewer that ten people on this board that I despise, and you are in the top five]]
Again, a childish position to take- You are asserting something that the SC does not agree with- You are asserting that anything that relies on a law of congress automatically makes it a process- that isn’t the case- 1409 only relates to a child born out of wedlock and only applies to the father it has nothing to do with a citizen mother having a child off soil
[[The statutory distinction relevant in this case, then, is that S:1409(a)(4) requires one of three affirmative steps to be taken if the citizen parent is the father, but not if the citizen parent is the mother: ]]
Again- If you wish to keep acting like a child- then I don’t really care to keep discussing the issue with you- You have FAILED to explain how 1409 applies to the mother who is a citizen who has the child off soil- and then turn around and accuse me of lying?
[[You are stupid, evil, or both]]
What are you? 12?
[[It has been pointed out to you, using the exact words from the Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS decision, that this so-called equivalence depends on the statute for existence.]]
And it has been pointed out to you that a statute doesn’t automatically relate to a ‘process of naturalization’ when at birth and by birth do not fit the statute’s requirements for naturalization via process- You tried to wiggle out of it before by claiming ‘not all naturalizations require a process’ In the other thread- but again, it’s been pointed out that when a process is not needed it’s not an act of naturalization via process-
You are free to disagree with this- but again, it’s a solid grounds for disagreement- and resorting to name calling when someone doesn’t agree with your position when it’s a FACT that the courts aren’t even in agreement is again, uncalled for- As bleu dragon pointed out to you- there is disagreement over what the term naturalize means- and those arguing that jus soli is the ONLY criteria for NBC (provided parents are citizens) ignores the fact that the Nguyen case infers that jus sanguinis (at birth and by birth) is also a criteria to be taken into consideration-