No I wasn’t avoiding that question I had answered it previously in 283 but i’ll be more specific here-
none of them do provided the unwed father, a citizen, who’s partner is not a citizen, meets certain requirements- as 1409 states right off the bat, 1401 applies if conditions are met in regards to the unwed father- and that
b) Except as otherwise provided in section 405 of this Act, the provisions of section 1401(g) of this title shall apply to a child born out of wedlock
Which states:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
1401 (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:”
(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,
Your argument ‘seems to be’ and correct me if I’m wrong, that if a father does not meet the requirements then the child in essence would lose what the ‘Ted is an NBC’ advocates state is ‘NBC’, therefore it can’t be NBC that the child has- is this a fair assessment of your main argument?
1. 1401(g) birth in wedlock, mother is a US citizens, father is an alien
2. 1401(g) birth in wedlock, father is a US citizens, mother is an alien
Answer: 1401 (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years,
4. 1409(c) birth out of wedlock, mother is a US citizen, father is an alien
Answer: 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,
3. 1409(a) birth out of wedlock, father is a US citizen, mother is an alien
Does the father meet the requirements of 1409? Or does he refuse to take responsibility and own up to it? 1409 is there to show there is an exception to the rule IF a father doesn’t meet the requirments
I remain puzzled by your "1409 has only to do with a child of a foreign mother, who resides with a father- they are the ones who must apply after birth- at birth and by birth do not-" Your answers have only muddied the water.
I don't even know what you mean by the phrase "must apply after birth," and I don't know if "at birth and by birth do not [have to apply]" is the correct take on your statement.
Just say what you mean. After you describe the meaning of "must apply," answer YES or NO to whether persons born under 1401(g) "must apply."
This discussion isn't about what I believe. I am trying to understand what you believe. I'll answer your question, but it does nothing to further this line of discussion. My take on case law is well said by the case law itself:
Congress is empowered by the Constitution to 'establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,' Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.
I see the language of 1401(a) in the constitution, so a 1401(a) person does not acquire citizenship solely under the exercise of Congress' power to naturalize. All the rest in 1401, and every birth covered by 1409, is naturalized.
Naturalized and natural born are mutually exclusive. One cannot be both.
That's the end of my answer to your question.