[[Naturalized and natural born are mutually exclusive. One cannot be both]\]
Agreed- no disagreement here-
[[All the rest in 1401, and every birth covered by 1409, is naturalized.]]
All the rest “ARE” Naturalized? Or are “ALL THE REST IN YOUR OPINION ARE” Naturalized? Because this is the area where legal scholars disagree-
[[This discussion isn’t about what I believe.]]
Actually the discussion is about a disagreement between you and I over what we both believe-
[[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 understand the position you take on the issue- however, there is still the fact that legal scholars believe that while congress is given the power to describe what naturalization is, by implication, this means it also has the power to describe what it isn’t- and they believe that congress has made it clear that only cases in which a process takes place is naturalization- the rest have their citizenship automatically without need of a process-
I understand your quibble with this That essentially, I believe, takes the position that anything that relies on an ‘act or statute of congress for definition’ means it is an act of statute and not an act of constitution- however this again is the major disagreement among legal scholars-
[[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.]]
I’ll try to explain- I’m not a wordsmith obviously- and htigns come out confusing, I know this- however I’ll try ot be clear-
The major issue among legal scholars seems ot boil down to jus soli and jus sanguinis- some purists think only jus soli qualifies a person for presidency IF the parents are citizens too- other say jus soli if only one parent is citizen, while other argue that jus soli and jus sanguinis allow a child to run for president someday IF one, two, parents, either or, is a citizen (which brings us to ‘at birth and by birth’)
At birth indicates jus soli, by birth indicates jus sanguinis, which implies citizenship by descent basically- (I know you know all this- I’m just trying to make my comments clearer concerning my take on at birth and by birth)
The CRS report and the cases cited by the report, both SC case and federal- indicate that jus sanguinis is afforded the same rights as jus soli if conditions are met- arguing that basically common law/natural law and the law of nations etc imply citizenship is passed, in a sovereign right, by descent to the child of a sovereign parent- This is a ‘natural law’ (that congress gets to further ‘help’ by defining what naturalization is or isn’t later, as circumstances change and warrant further clarification by congress- While congress may not directly define NBC, they indirectly clarify it further by describing those things which need a process of naturalization and those that don’t-
This last statement I think is the point of contention in the different camps - some assert that it is an attempt by congress to manipulate NBC by ruling on what isn’t NBC, others state that it does no such thing and simply clarifies NBC further as was intended by the founders who knew things would necessarily have to be further defined as the country grew and circumstances changed through the ages (or rather as new info came to light which would later complicate things further ie: the whole stinking gay marriage issue, in vitro fertilization, paternity issues etc) Things our founders perhaps didn’t realize, but envisioned unforeseen complications would arise later-
I’ve made it clear which side I’m leaning towards, and given the reasons why- I’m not seeing the significance of your argument bringing up 1409 all the time- maybe I’m just missing your point- or maybe your aren’t explaining it well enough, I don’t know- probably the former- but the conversation seems stalled at this one point-
Now, I’m going to sit back and follow your conversation with unlearner for a bit- as you both are bringing up interesting points- important points- which I think may help to possibly clarify the point you are trying to make to me, about 1409-
Can you PLEASE, pretty please, express what you mean by "must apply after birth" as you used that phrase a couple days ago? In context, it (the verb "to apply") reads like an action that is taken by the parents (or the child), making an application to the US government, for example, to the State Department or a consular office.
This is what you said:
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-
You are the one who introduced 1409, using a misleading CRS restatement of the Nguyen case as authority for the proposition that in certain cases, birth abroad is equivalent to birth on US soil.
You obviously don't understand my explanation of why the CRS restatement is misleading, or my restatement of what the Nguyen case actually says and stands for. But never mind that.
I want to understand what that blockquote sentence of yours means. "they are the ones who must apply after birth- at birth and by birth do not-" describes two different groups. I don't want an explanation WHY one group has to "apply" (whatever that is) and the other does not. I only want to know, precisely, who the "they's" are, and what is "must apply after birth."