I've read it. It affects the citizenship of the Woman. Therefore it Affects the citizenship of her Children. You are dodging the salient point.
Please point out in the Cable Act where it deals with citizenship other than the mother.
The operative word is "mother." I'm sorry you don't "get it."
Please point out how it changes the citizenship of any children to a "new" subcategory that did not exist before. I've linked the actual text of the Act - it's just 1 page, it should be easy to identify this new subcategory of citizenship if it exists, as you claim.
I have linked for you the text of the Women's Citizenship act of 1934. You fail to see the subtler connection to the Cable act, but you cannot fail to see the absolute connection to the 1934 act. That you ignore it to prattle on about how you can't see how an act which affects a woman's citizenship could possibly affect her offspring belies the fact that you cannot ignore my point regarding the subsequent act.
These two acts created dual citizens under different circumstances. Dual citizens were non-existent prior to these two acts. If you cannot comprehend the significance of this point then I simply feel sorry for you. More like you understand it all too well, and simply don't want to admit that you had never considered the ramifications of it before.
First, I don't believe you did read it because you referenced the wrong Act.
Second, the fact your parents may switch allegiance and citizenship in NO WAY changes the citizenship of the child. None. That's been consistent from the founding of this nation. IF your parents are not citizens when you're born - then you're not a citizen either. But once you're a US citizen - even as a minor - no one can take that citizenship from you save an act of the Courts/Congress (treason) or your own volition.
You simply do not understand citizenship nor law.
I have linked for you the text of the Women's Citizenship act of 1934. You fail to see the subtler connection to the Cable act,
The Cable Act was REPEALED in 1936. Why you insist on using it to make some obtuse, illogical, and unfounded contention with citizenship is beyond me - especially for anyone born after 1936 - when the Act was repealed.
Simple question: is a person born on US soil a US citizen? Yes or no? Your refusal to answer that question is damning of your contention.