> but this statute does NOT confer citizenship on someone who is already a citizen
So your answer to my question “You are asserting that the foreign-born child of a citizen is a citizen when the parent does not meet the requirement of the statute, is that correct?” is “Yes”.
Congress wasted their time when they wrote the statute. And they wasted their time when they reduced the requirements from “not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years” to “not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years” (Pub. L. No. 99-653 § 12, 100 Stat. 3657 (1986)). In fact they’ve wasted their time every time they wrote a naturalization statute because the person (according to you) was already a citizen and in fact was a natural born citizen. Hardly likely. And the Supreme Court has never interpreted it this way.
> there is a statute that creates extra burden for foreign born Natural Born Citizens
You have shown no legal or historical basis supporting this claim.
Regarding Bellei - “The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not ‘second-class.’” Rogers v Bellei
He was not already a citizen and then “burdened” with extra requirements. He was not a citizen until statutory requirements were met.
Congress has authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and can impose nearly any condition precedent or subsequent. Bellei lost his citizenship because he failed to comply with a condition subsequent required by naturalization statute, and for no other reason. If he had not been naturalized he would not have lost his citizenship.
Even if Bellei did not lose his citizenship he would still be a naturalized citizen, just as Cruz is.
[[He was not already a citizen and then “burdened” with extra requirements.]]
Yes he was- the burden for NBC born off-soil is greater than on-soil for the reasons i and springfieldreformer mentioned- He lost his citizenship because of lax guidelines by the court in determining what a person’s ‘intent to expatriate’ were- I’m not going to keep stating this- You seem to be trying to dance around this point- but it always comes back to this point regarding the Bellei case-
[[Even if Bellei did not lose his citizenship he would still be a naturalized citizen,]]
There was no statute that conferred citizenship to him nor was there a naturalization process he went through- another point you seem disinclined to address- There was a statute that he failed to comply with which, wrongly, in the eyes of the court, they determined to mean he voluntarily expatriated himself without going through a process of expatriation- as mentioned several times now, courts have stepped up to the plate and done away with such lax interpretation of a citizen’s ‘intent to expatriate’, and for good reason- Courts can’t just arbitrarily strip a citizen of their citizenship without strong/stringent probable cause anymore-
[[If he had not been naturalized he would not have lost his citizenship.]]
If you will read the dissenting opinion in the case- he most certainly did lose his NBC citizenship- this is why later courts stepped in to correct this atrocity so that it never happens again- it is now much much harder for a court to strip someone of their citizenship and yes, a court can and does strip people of their citizenship- but it is nowm uch harder for them to do so than it was in Bellei’s day