You aren't a wallflower, and blunt conversation is efficient. Plus, I really don't like you, and that shows in how I respond to your drivel.
-- You stated that the Nyguen case doesn't state that there is an equivalence between mother who has child here or abroad and state that the case is just about the issue that some naturalizations doesn't require a process/act and some do --
That's false. The case is an equal rights case. As for the paragraph that is a truism (some naturalization involves a ceremony, some naturalization doesn't involve a ceremony), a truism isn't an issue - it's a truism. The case recites a truism, which you interpret as a rule of law that "it isn't naturalization unless there is a ceremony"
-- You have yet to explain how that case translates into the child (born abroad) needing a naturalization process when it states [cite excised] --
You prove my point that you aren't skilled at reading case law. If you were skilled, you would not need an explanation. As I pointed out weeks ago, I don't have time to correct all the people who have a mission of misleading the public. It's a fools errand.
The section that you claim makes a birth abroad the same as a birth in the US is expounding on the difference between a man and a woman, in light of 1409. A woman is able to come to the US and have a 14th amendment citizen baby. A man, being not pregnant, doesn't have that power of choice.
-- and ongoing court declarations both for and against certain positions down through the ages --
There are ZERO contrary US cases on the legal rule of "birth-abroad = alien or naturalized."
-- you keep trying to assign motive to me-- something you got angry at me for doing to you unintentionally in the other thread --
I got pissed at you for misrepresenting what I said, and it seems you have a habit of misrepresenting what you read, be it case law or debate with other people.
And I am not buying your "I'm innocent" act.
[[The section that you claim makes a birth abroad the same as a birth in the US is expounding on the difference between a man and a woman, in light of 1409]]
That is a sub issue
[[Plus, I really don’t like you, and that shows in how I respond to your drivel.]]
And I’ve given you reason to not like me how? I’ve not once called you ignorant, called your posts drivel or said any of the crap you’ve said to me- Not sure exactly what is pissing you off- but really it’s me who should be pissed at you- for acting childish
[[A woman is able to come to the US and have a 14th amendment citizen baby.]]
You left off that a woman can have the baby on foreign soil and the child is a citizen-
From the Nyguen case:
[[Before considering the important governmental interests advanced by the statute, two observations concerning the operation of the provision are in order. First, a citizen mother expecting a child and living abroad has the right to reenter the United States so the child can be born here and be a 14th Amendment citizen. From one perspective, then, the statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’s birth and the other chooses not to return, or does not have the means to do so. This equivalence is not a factor if the single citizen parent living abroad is the father. For, unlike the unmarried mother, the unmarried father as a general rule cannot control where the child will be born.]]
[[And I am not buying your “I’m innocent” act.]]
At this point- after your childish insults, I don’t give a crap what you believe- You condescending attitude and playground insults seem to be all you have left now- I’ve tried to be civil with you but your attitude really sucks- I explained my reason for inquiring about this issue- and I stand by what I said- take it or leave it I don’t care at this point