[[What is the “this” you are referring to?]]
The law you posted about- I posted the blurb from the act “Suspected False or Fraudulent Citizenship Claim of Minor Child”
[[But, you see it different. So, which of these combinations requires “an application,” and which do not?]]
I already explained which and backed it up citing the law I posted the words from- The Nguyen case and the federal case cited In the CRs report both show what I explained- 1409 is not speaking to a citizen mother who gives birth off soil UNLESS them other gives up custody to the father- then the father must meet requirements outlined in 1409 in order for child to be citizen
[[The fact that case law is too dense for you to understand does not make the case law confusing to others.]]
That is a true statement- but I understand it fine- and courts both supreme and federal have found that a citizen mother giving birth to child off soil is the same as one giving birth on soil because of jus sanguinis
IF you can show that there is a recent case showing jus sanguinis doesn’t confer citizenship by descent, then ok- but you just keep stating 1409 confers the same requirements onto 1401-
[[I contend that the parents have to go through the process of submitting to an examination relating to the circumstances of birth; and that the claim is adjudicated]]
The point beign that not all parents do have to - only those where it is suspected that there is fraudulence taking place- That was the ‘this’ that I was referring to
That's nonsense, literally, and I don't have the patience to sort out your gibberish. By way of example, NOTHING in the law speaks to "gives up custody to the father." You are deliberately fogging things up.
Just go back to the list of 1-4, and say which ones have to apply, and which don't.
-- and courts both supreme and federal have found that a citizen mother giving birth to child off soil is the same as one giving birth on soil because of jus sanguinis --
There you go with that lie again.
-- IF you can show that there is a recent case showing jus sanguinis doesn't confer citizenship by descent, then ok --
That isn't even the question. The question is whether citizenship by jus sanguinis is naturalization.
-- The point beign that not all parents do have to - only those where it is suspected that there is fraudulence taking place- That was the `this' that I was referring to --
"Do have to" what? Is it your contention that a foreign birth certificate, on its own, is evidence of United States NBC?