Replies

an important point in the Nguyen case that was brought out during questioning- The issue at hand was whether a child RETAINS their citizenship status if the unwed father doesn’t meet the higher standards of citizenship requirements imposed on children born to a citizen parent overseas

1 MS. DAVIS: What this Court has indicated, both
2 in Rogers v. Bellei and also in a majority of the justices
3 in the Miller case —
4 QUESTION: But that’s your position is all I
5 wanted to —
6 MS. DAVIS: — stated that it’s recognition of
7 existing citizenship and continuing citizenship.

IF the requirements are not met, the father goes into a state of ‘statelessness’ and could not pass his citizenship down to a child- the child would lose their citizenship status because the father failed to comply with the statute, which the courts then interpret as ‘intent to expatriate’- and since the child assumes the allegiance of a parent until 18 years of age- that child would lose it’s ‘at birth citizenship’ (remember, we are talking about the child of one citizen parent either mother or father- in htis case the father- an unwed father- which the congress has a right to impose stricter stipulations on because of the whole bond/allegiance issues associated with a child being brought up by an unwed father alone)

The whole point of the Nguyen case was that the lone citizen in an unwed case (husband not being a citizen), the citizen mother, had certain rights that a lone citizen father (when the mother was not a citizen) in an unwed case, the citizen father didn’t’ have, or rather, a Citizen mother had a much easier statute requirement than a lone citizen father had- The basic argument was that there is no difference between the status of a child born to a US citizen mother on soil as a US citizen mother’s child born off soil, while there was a difference when it was the unwed father who had sole custody of the child, and hwo had to meet much higher standards and present greater burden of proof to show their parentage

Congress has the right and obligation to enact higher standards for children born off soil, however, the bottom line is the child is born a citizen by birthright, but can have that birthright stripped if conditions aren’t met

[[QUESTION: Yes, I mean, their — their
13 citizenship is conferred by statute, and they are citizens
14 from birth, and there are probably tens of millions of
15 them, and George Romney was one of them, and I had not
16 thought that they were naturalized citizens. I thought
17 they were citizens who were citizens by virtue of their
18 birth, and they’re citizens from birth, but you were
19 saying they’re the same as naturalized. Or maybe I
20 misunderstood.
21 MS. DAVIS: Yes. Your Honor, the wording of the
22 Constitution is natural born citizens for purposes of
23 being President or Vice President. And what — I haven’t
24 done the research myself. What commentators say is that
25 natural born is the equivalent of — includes, encompasses
23
1 jus soli and jus sanguinis. But that’s a different term
2 than naturalized.
3 QUESTION: If that’s so, then those who — then
4 those who are born abroad of an American parent are
5 natural born citizens in your view?
6 MS. DAVIS: That’s correct.]]

MS. DAVIS: Your Honor, I guess the question is
12 whether the term naturalized in the Constitution also
13 encompasses natural born citizens. In Rogers versus Bellei
14 suggested that it did.
15 QUESTION: Well, I — for present purposes what
16 we’re interested in is what standard of review to apply,
17 and whether the extremely deferential standard applies to
18 these natural born citizens.
19 MS. DAVIS: I think it’s — I think it’s totally
20 clear that jus sanguinis citizenship has a different
21 history than naturalized citizenship and has traditionally
22 by this Court as well as by Congress been treated
23 differently.

The whole purpose of Nguyen, and of stricter requirements for proof of paternal relationship in he case of sole guardianship, is to determine who the child belongs to- if it can’t be established who the child belongs to, who the child derives from, then citizenship can’t be established- and congress determines the child can not have citizenship even though the child may, by all rights, be an actual citizen even though no proof is available- The father, for obvious reasons, must establish that he is the actual father and must demonstrate that he is a citizen, in order for the child to retain it’s citizenship status

While Jus Sanguinis citizenship has different stipulations, it is no different when it comes to the citizenship status of a child- that child, if found to be a citizen at birth, has every right afforded a Natural Born Citizen