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-The closest I come to finding a response is this:
If the unwed father isn't a national, the mother isn't a citizen, and the father hasn't met the requirements under 1409, he will have to go through a process before the child can become a naturalized citizen
Which is even more confusing. If the father isn't a national, and the mother isn't a citizen, and the child is born abroad, the child is pure alien, no connection the US by blood or by soil.
Further, 8 USC 1409 has multiple sets of requirements. Which requirements do you have in mind? Don't blockquote the language, just say (a)(1-3) or (a)(4)(A-C), or whatever group of requirements. Maybe you mean all of them, which is (a)(1-4)
Another logically puzzling thing is that you say the father has to "go through a process" if the father hasn't met the requirements, and that if the process has been gone through, and the father hasn't met the requirements, the child can become naturalized.
The logic seems to be that if the father doesn't meet the requirements, he goes through some process, and the child can become a naturalized citizen anyway.
Setting all that confusion aside, maybe we can make some progress. Your reference to "go through a process," is indefinite. Is that the same as "must apply after birth?" If it is the same, what is this process? Don't search for or blockquote a mess of chapter and verse of statute or regulation, just say in a few words, what you think the process is. Does he go to the doctor? (just joking) Does he fill out an application? Does he gather and submit evidence? If he submits evidence, who does he submit it to? That sort of description - my questions aren't meant to be answered literally, they are only meant to illustrate the nature of my confusion. You have some "process" in mind, and if you want me to know what that is, you need to tell me what's in your mind.
[[The logic seems to be that if the father doesn’t meet the requirements, he goes through some process, and the child can become a naturalized citizen anyway.]]
No that’s not what I meant to say-
it appears that for the child of an unwed father who IS a citizen, it appears they would have to establish parenthood through the court, or to agree to provide financial support until child is 18- IF paternity is established through a process of court before child is 21, then the 1401 g) applies it appears according to 1409 b)
(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 on or after January 13, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, as of the date of birth, if the paternity of such child is established at any time while such child is under the age of twenty-one years by legitimation.
[[Does he gather and submit evidence?]]
It appears from 1409 he has to in order to prove he is the father according to the following (IF he didn’t meet previously stated requirements in 1409)
[[(B) the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
(C) the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court. ]]
A somewhat confusing issue comes in when describing an unwed father who is a national (and mother is not a citizen or national)- I presume the child would be a national- but 1401 deals with both nationals and citizenship
I’m not sure exactly what you are driving at- which is why I wanted to wait and see how your discussion with unlearner hashes out the issues- perhaps I’m just not seeing the relevance of your contention that the CRS report is invalid because it didn’t mention the exception to 1401 (which is 1409)- and I don’t see how 1409 even invalidates the conclusion of CRS report and the justices’ opinions in the Nguyen case that indicated that the case showed a difference between NBC and the need for naturalization
There’s been a miscommunication on your part OR a misunderstanding on my part- probably the latter-
Not to confuse the issue further, but another point needs to be made regarding the Bellei case- Bellei was found to have ‘forfeited his citizenship’ for not meeting requirements based on an act that appears to have been repealed- (1972 I believe I read?)- the supreme court ruled on that case based on that specific act, and it appears that since the act is no longer in effect, may not come to the same conclusion they did today as they did then should a case with the same circumstances come up again- I may be wrong on this- as I haven’t looked into the issue too much- but it appears the act has been repealed?