No. Not making anything up, just restating what you said. I think you are irrational, or a sloppy analyst of your own words, or jerking me around.
"Mother had to register his birth at the US Consulate" results in a CRBA. @32 you say his mother had to register his birth at the US Consulate. Later, @136, and now @179 you say "After that you must pursue a different avenue." which is something other than a CRBA.
You further say that a person is not a citizen until the examiner approves the application.
Then you say that my statement: "You initially said that if a certain foreign born person didn't have a CRBA, then he's not a citizen. At a later point you said that if he didn't have a CRBA, but had a Certificate of Citizenship, he would be a citizen." is me making things up. Obviously those are direct quotes of what you said, but they are equivalent statements of fact.
-- FYI: You have up to five years to get a CRBA. --
Got a cite for that? The government webpages suggest that a CRBA is obtained as long as the applicant is less than 18 years of age.
Question: when did the applicant acquire citizenship? --Upon approval.--
Heh.
8 USC 1401 opens with:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:and kabar says that's not true. A person isn't a citizen at birth, they are a citizen upon approval. That application and approval are required.
My previous estimation of you as an honest, straight shooter, that estimation is shot to hell in a handbasket. I used to trust what you posted, I don't trust your assertions any more. Not any of them. I see you as a crank and crackpot. I figure the sentiment is mutual, so goes the war.
Usually, when I notice mistakes of my own of that nature, I don't say anything, because I figure my correspondent is wise and gracious enough to realize the omission was an inadvertant error. With you, I presently lack that presumption.
Either his mother had to act (mandatory) to convey citizenship, or not. Those two positions are mutually exclusive, and you have asserted both as true.
As I explained, an overt action had to be taken by the mother to obtain US citizenship for her infant son. It was my assumption that she did register the birth with the consulate. Obviously, Ted could not do that himself. The use of the word "had" is meant to describe what actually happened.
Tom had to pay by check to buy the sofa. This is not to say that check was the only method to buy the sofa. He could have used cash or a credit card but had neither. Am I saying that the only way to buy a sofa is by check?
You further say that a person is not a citizen until the examiner approves the application.
Why is that such a difficult concept to understand? Ted Cruz received DERIVATIVE citizenship thru his mother. There are laws and regulations who can transmit and receive such citizenship. I provided you with the link showing those requirements as well as giving you an excerpt of one of the conditions that concerned Obama. Here it is
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Obama was born in 1961 to his 17 year old mother. If Obama was not born in Hawaii, his mother could not transmit US citizenship to him. Those were the rules at the time of his birth. They were changed later.
There is no such thing as a citizen in waiting. In the hypothetical you provided about someone who only realized his eligibility many years later, I explained why citizenship is not retroactive and only becomes effective upon approval. You cite the statute "A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided.
Again, you are literally taking the meaning of the phrase "at birth" to mean that there is some sort of retroactive citizenship and that the approval process is not conditional. The reason "at birth" is there is to distinguish it from the naturalization process.
From the State Department Foreign Affairws Manual (FAM: - 3 Not Citizens by "Naturalization" (CT:CON 2013) Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.
If the person you posed in the hypothetical got in trouble in another country and needed consular assistance, he would not be considered an American citizen retroactively. Unless he holds a US passport or some other proof of citizenship, he is not our responsibility. We even caution people holding dual nationalities that there are limits to what we can do if they travel on another country's passport.
You are engaged in these verbal gymnastics to justify your contention that Cruz is a natural born citizen. He may or may not be. This issue needs to be litigated before the court for the reasons I have stated previously. It is not settled law.