[[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-
Your resort to "absence of process" isn't quite as solid as you think it is. The applicant is required to submit his claim to an adjudicative body for approval. No submission, no citizenship.
Your claim that the Nguyen case infers that jus sanguinis is an avenue to NBC requires dishonesty to advance.
-- 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 --
1409 applies to ALL out of wedlock births.
Children born out of wedlock8 USC 1409(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
The Nguyen case exists because the part (a) requirements don't apply when the citizen parent is the mother. The argument was that it was unconstitutional to apply those requirements when the citizen parent is the father.
-- unlike you I don't call someone who believes something different than I do a liar --
At this point, it isn't a question of belief. You have been caught misrepresenting what the cases say, after you have been shown what the cases say. You have NEVER rebutted my arguments, all you offer in return is persistent misrepresentation. I remind you that you have also deliberately misrepresented MY words. You are dishonest.