[[He did not desire to lose citizenship yet he did because he did not comply with the terms of naturalization statute.]]
You are not even bothering to read anything I’ve written are you?
This is the last time- I really am burned out on this issue because i keep saying the same answers over and over, and people just ignore them but they are relevant ot the issue being discussed- there is no ‘naturalization statute’ for natural born citizens- there is a statute that creates extra burden for foreign born Natural Born Citizens, as is the congress’s right to define- but this statute does NOT confer citizenship on someone who is already a citizen- Bellei lost his citizenship because he did not meet them ore stringent requirements of off-soil born natur4al born citizenship- The courts interpreted that as ‘intent to expatriate’ and they stripped him of his citizenship- wrongly- Courts have since made it much harder for courts to ‘determine intent to expatriate’, and it’s now almost required that a person must formally renounce their citizenship, and declare allegiance to another country before the court will declare them a non citizen (except in cases of proven treason- the courts interpret that as voluntary expatriation without a formal process of expatriation needed)
There is no naturalization statute- there is only a statute for non citizens that declares they must be naturalized by a process- and there especially is no naturalization statute for NBC children born off-soil
> 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.
> i keep saying the same answers over and over, and people just ignore them
That is because you offer nothing to support your assertions. Repeatedly asserting them doesn’t make them true.
> There is no naturalization statute- there is only a statute for non citizens that declares they must be naturalized by a process- and there especially is no naturalization statute for NBC children born off-soil
Your entire theory springs from this mistaken premise.