Replies

-- As I explained, an overt action had to be taken by the mother to obtain US citizenship for her infant son. --

We disagree on that, unless by "had to be taken" you mean that she actually took an overt action.

-- 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. --

Well, in the ordinary use of language, "had to pay by check to buy the sofa" is saying that his payment options were limited to payment by check - maybe the limitation arises by the form of funds he had at his disposal, maybe because the seller insisted on a check. If you mean something else by "had to pay by check," don't be surprised that your reader is confused.

-- 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. --

I never said that either the citizenship, nor the approval was not conditional. Both are conditional.

-- The reason "at birth" is there [in 1401] is to distinguish it from the naturalization process. --

the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth

The way I read those statements together, citizenship under 1401(g) attaches at birth, and is not conditioned on approval. You have said that citizenship attaches after birth, on approval, and doesn't attach at all if the conditions are met and approval isn't sought. Well, that's the natural meaning of the words you typed, maybe you mean something different, and I'm just confused again.

-- You are engaged in these verbal gymnastics to justify your contention that Cruz is a natural born citizen. --

That's false. I find that Cruz is a statutory citizen, that because his citizenship depends on the statute, he is not a natural born citizen.

-- You really are a pedantic, pissant. --

That was uncalled for. I can only go by the words you type, and as i pointed out with the "had to pay by check" example, maybe the words you type are taken, by others, in a way different from what you intend.

We disagree on that, unless by "had to be taken" you mean that she actually took an overt action.

What did I say in my most recent response to you? "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."

There are two ways to become a citizen, at birth (jus solis and jus sanguinis jus solis is automatic. You are born on US soil or a territory of the US and you are a citizen no matter who your parents are or whether they are here legally or not. It is called birthright citizenship for a reason. Jus sanguinis is derivative citizenship based on a number of conditions. The burden of proof falls on the applicant to show that they are eligible to receive it under the laws current at the time.

There is no such thing as retroactive citizenship. Again, the at birth proviso is to distinguish the two ways you can become a citizen, i.e., at birth or naturalization. The procedures, required documents, etc for naturalization are different than those required for those acquiring citizenship via jus solis or jus sanguinis .

I don't appreciate being called a "crank and crackpot." Like Trump, I don't respond unless attacked. When you get personal, it weakens your position. You can disagree without being disagreeable.