“If the statement were intended to apply to the entire section, it would have said so. (”This section applies ...”) It doesn’t. It expressly limits the retroactive effect to the PROVISO within the section.”
Why does the effective date of the 1986 amendment say this, keeping in mind that Obamas mother and father were never legally married, as he already had a wife in Kenya....thus, she was unmarried. :
“the provisions of section 1401(g) of this title shall apply to a child born out of wedlock on or after January 13, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, as of the date of birth, if the paternity of such child is established at any time while such child is under the age of twenty-one years by legitimation. (c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.”
ghettofinger: Why does the effective date of the 1986 amendment say this.....
Ok.
8 USC 1409(b) provides,
Except as otherwise provided in section 405 of this Act, the provisions of section 1401 (g) of this title shall apply to a child born out of wedlock on or after January 13, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, as of the date of birth, if the paternity of such child is established at any time while such child is under the age of twenty-one years by legitimation. ..... Ok. This amendment provision does modify
8 USC 1401(g) for purposes of children born
between 1941 and 1952. So, while 1401(g)(B) currently reads:
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; ....the effect of the 1986 amendment to 1409 is to add 1941-1952 to the relevant period.
But – even if my reading is wrong, and the 1941-52 period applies to the entire paragraph (g), that doesn't help anyone here, since Obama wasn't born between 1941 and 1952.
Let's move on to (c).
8 USC 1409(c) provides:
Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year. As I read (c), a child who is born outside the US after 1952 to a mother who is not married acquires US citizenship at birth if his mother was a US citizen and had previously been present in the US for at least one continuous year.
However, 1409(c) is not modifying 1401(g) at all, so if you are relying on 1409(c) to make your argument, leave 1401 completely out of it.
ghettofinger: ....keeping in mind that Obamas mother and father were never legally married, as he already had a wife in Kenya....thus, she was unmarried.
Question: Do you have a link to the Hawaiian law (or any other law) under which a US marriage would be invalidated on the basis of a tribal ceremony marriage in a foreign country, especially if that marriage was not registered or otherwise legally recognized at the time of the US marriage?