I'm driving at understanding what is in your head, when you say ...
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-
So far, all I have in the way of understanding what is in your head, I think, is that for a child born out of wedlock, to a US citizen father, the father has to prove certain things to some "US citizenship authority." The identification of this "US citizenship authority is not an issue. It is either the state Department, Immigration and Naturalization, a Consular Office, or a Court.
I don't know if the father having to prove certain things to some US citizenship authority is what you meant by "apply after birth" or your later "go through a process."
Referring to your mysterious statement blockquoted above, I also don't know, not even by way of a single example, who you think is in the group of "at birth and by birth do not." One reason this is confusing to me is that for the "father has to prove certain things" case, the citizenship is still "at birth." In both 1401 and 1409, the person is a citizen at birth if certain things are proved. The "certain things" vary with circumstances of birth, but all of those Acts of Congress require "certain things" be proved as a condition of finding citizenship.
Nothing below this line is pertinent to the discussion.
The material below this line is addressing extraneous issues that you brought up.
I didn't say what you claim there. You seem to have a chronic practice of making mistakes, many of them pivotal to the discussion.
I said the CRS report is misleading, not because of any exceptions to 1401, but rather on the fundamental point in the Nguyen case that any "equivalence" between birth abroad and birth on the soil exists solely on account of a statute. Making things "equivalent" by statute does not turn one thing (birth abroad) into another (birth in the US), except by creating a legal equivalence or legal fiction. The equivalence DEPENDS ON THE STATUTE. This is a simple concept that you fail to acknowledge, even though it has been expressed to you several times.
Expounding on that by way of example, there is a Social Security regulation that says a 21 year old shall be considered to be a child. For Social Security purposes, a 21 year old is a child. If the regulation is taken away, a 21 year old is an adult - the "equivalence" (legal fiction) disappears.
-- [referring to the Bellei case] 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 --
A case with the same circumstances can't come up for a person born after 1978 or so. The issue was stripping of citizenship for failure to meet the conditions subsequent to birth (in Bellei's case, 5 years of US residence or presence before the age of 21). Citizenship retention conditions were amended by Pub. L. 92-584 (1972), and then removed by Pub. L. 95-432 (1978).
If a case with the same circumstances came up again (citizenship under a statute that includes citizenship retention requirements; and the citizenship retention requirements are not met), the authorities would simply apply the rule established in the Bellei case. The issue is decided, stare decisis, courts simply point at the case, and say "follow it."
A basic point that you fail to acknowledge is that the very existence of the Bellei case depends on Bellei being a naturalized citizen. No Act of Congress can strip citizenship from a citizen who is not naturalized.
[[A basic point that you fail to acknowledge is that the very existence of the Bellei case depends on Bellei being a naturalized citizen.]]
Based only on the now repealed act- the act, according to the SC as I understand it was what they used to determine he was naturalized and not NBC
[[Referring to your mysterious statement blockquoted above, I also don’t know, not even by way of a single example, who you think is in the group of “at birth and by birth do not.”]]
I’ve explained my position on this many times- Any ‘common law/natural law’ (as well as ‘law of nations’ thrown into the mix) results in at birth and by birth Citizenship either by being born on soil, or by descent
to make htings a little more confusing, there sems to be an issue where a national’s child is automatically a national ‘at birth’ as well
[[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,]]
[[In both 1401 and 1409, the person is a citizen at birth if certain things are proved.]]
1401 regarding citizens doesn’t have to prove anything unless, as the exception 1409 states, the parents are unwed- the fact that they don’t have to prove anything, seems to mean citizenship is automatically descended to the child if the mother or father is a citizen-
[[The “certain things” vary with circumstances of birth, but all of those Acts of Congress require “certain things” be proved as a condition of finding citizenship]]
‘making it a statute’ - and your argument seems ot be- and correct me if I’m wrong, that statutes always invalidate a person from being president because the statute means they can’t be an NBC, and that they are instead naturalized- however, the court In the Nguyen case seemed to recognize a difference in special circumstances such as unwed parents, and recognized dual categories of ‘after birth’ naturalization vs citizenship minus any ‘after birth’ actions - In the Nguyen case, it was determined that a lack of ‘after birth’ actions by the father rendered the situation one of a naturalization process- Further, those who suggest that congress ‘can’t pass law regulating what natural born citizenship means’ forget that the 1790 act did just that, passed law determining what NBC was- so it seems plausible that all law passed by congress regarding citizenship doesn’t automatically make it an act which must confer citizenship via naturalization
The Nguyen case opinions of the justices showed that there is a difference in ‘at birth’ citizenship, and ‘after birth citizenship’ which ‘must have requirements fulfilled, and this would ‘seem to indicate’ that citizenship can indeed be stripped from a person in special circumstances (such as a father not meeting requirements, or a person who commits treason)-