Replies

[[The courts are all in agreement on this point. At least all the SCOTUS cases are.
Your resort to “absence of process” isn’t quite as solid as you think it is.]]

IF it isn’t as ‘solid as I think’ then obviously I misunderstand the issue- no? IF I misunderstand the point you are trying to make- then obviously I’m not intentionally lying- You have NOT made the case that 1409 has anything to do with at birth and by birth

[[I remind you that you have also deliberately misrepresented MY words.]]

Sigh! I explained ot you it was NOT a deliberate misrepresentation of your words- it APPEARED to me, mistakenly, that you were attacking me- you claimed you were not- I accepted that and apologized for misunderstanding you attack on those who don’t agree with you- Hold a grudge much?

[[You are dishonest.]]

The only one being dishonest here is you accusing me of lying when it’s clear from my posts that you have not made your case well enough for me to agree with it, and for accusing me, even AFTER I explained to you I Mistook your words to be an attack against me when they weren’t- I shouldn’t even have to be explaining this again at this point- I assumed it was understood back In the other thread that I was sorry for mistaking your comments for something else-

[[1409 applies to ALL out of wedlock births.]]

There is no dispute about that - Again, there seems to be a profound misunderstanding here- and your knee jerk reaction is to assume I am intentionally lying about the issue simply because I do not see you link to 1401- what you just posted just further seems to solidify that a citizen mother having a child off soil has a NBC by descent

[[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,]]

Ted’s mother certainly met that requirement-

[[Your claim that the Nguyen case infers that jus sanguinis is an avenue to NBC requires dishonesty to advance.]]

Or a lack of understanding- again- you immediately jump to the knee jerk reaction that anyone who doesn’t agree with your position is ‘being dishonest’- and you want people to trust what you have to say when you make these kind of false accusations?

You have not explained 1409 and it’s relevance to 1401 and to the claim that a mother citizen who has a child off soil is not due passing along NBC via jus sanguinis- AT BEST- all you’ve managed to do is provide the case of Bellei which is based on a congressional law which defines naturalization as someone who doesn’t meet requirements for NBC which is passed to them ‘at birth’- Your argument ‘seems to be’ because NBC can’t be taken via a law, that the bellei case can’t be about NBC and must be about a naturalization process because that would mean there are requirements for acquiring NBC- (there actually are requirements for NBC ie common law, natural law)- and it simply seems to me, from everything I’ve read so far on the issue, that IF the requirements for natural law (which is based also on evolving and on refined laws of nations), that one can forfeit NBC IF the common law refinements, and acts of congress, that have been adopted down through the ages haven’t been met- You position seems to be that any refinement and act of congress is the equivalent of a naturalization process- (apparently whether a process takes place or not- your position ‘seems to be’ that it’s always a process if it lies outside of ‘original intent’ of natural law’ as interpreted by the founding fathers

It also seems to me that the courts have been back and forth on this issue and that nothing has been settled yet definitively- and that there is, as bluedragon stated, solid grounds for disagreement o n this issue at present- and it does no good for you, who hasn’t made you case very clear to me, to keep resorting to name calling and false accusations- You are apparently bent out of shape over a misunderstanding for which I apologized long ago- and unfortunately that seems to season all of your current responses to me- and quite frankly it’s just petty-

IF you wish to make your case clearer about 1409, then ok- I admit I don’t see the relevance for what you are trying to claim- you just keep pointing to it and claiming it invalidates the idea that the courts have indicated their is no difference in citizenship of a child born to a citizen mother, who has the child born on soil or off- but I’d certainly appreciate it if you would do so without the petty name calling and false accusations

(Note- You ‘Seem to’ be making the case that because 1409 is added as an exception to 1401, that this makes 1401 cases acts/processes of naturalization on par with ‘after birth’ naturalization process of a child born to non citizen parents- I’m not seeing your connection- this isn’t a ‘deliberate misrepresentation’ or ‘intentional deceit’ on my part of any of your points- I simply am not seeing the connection- I shoulda thought that would have been obvious from our discussions together over this issue- but you seem determined to paint me as ‘deceitful’ for some reason-)