I asked you to validate a claim YOU MADE, that this law protects children of citizens. I asked how this law is “protecting” the child of a US citizen in this exact case, where it’s seeing the child of a US citizen deported and not having citizenship himself.
That’s 100% about this case, and this discussion. Yet you dodge it. Because you can’t answer it, or justify what you said.
No, now you are trying to change the subject, you were screaming about me saying people should lose citizenship, I never said that, you keep trying to insert words into my mouth i never said. This discussion is about how Citizens pass on citizenship to their offspring and what those requirements are, try to keep up.
And I made the point several times, this person never “abandoned” America. And even if he had, it’s an irreverent point, distracting from the conversation, that YOU KEEP MAKING.
He never renounced or gave up his citizenship. Simply stated.
Hi “ACTIONS” speak louder than your empty words. You can say it a million times but you saying it does not make it true. He left and never came back, spent all of his shore leave time in other countries, not 1 time ever returning to America, even now choosing not to live in America, his choice.
And again, I never said he should lose his citizenship, but if he has left America forever, then he should not get to pass citizenship to his children under the law.
Are you really that stupid? I’m not claiming there’s a residency requirement to work in international waters. I’m claiming that oil companies REQUIRE EMPLOYEES TO LIVE ON THE RIG. Was that REALLY that hard to put together?
That is not what you said, try to say what you mean next time, but even if this new comment is true it makes no sense at all. Of course they live on the boat during their cycle, where else would they live? In the water? You are just digging your foolishness deeper and deeper.
The question is, where did he live when not on the rig? Not America, and this is the point, he never returned to America to live, still today does not live in America. He made his choice.
On your assertion that oil rig workers don’t pay taxes, again, you are factually wrong. This law site, along with thousands of others you can easily find via Google prove you DO have to pay both state and federal taxes on work done offshore. In this case, he was a resident of Puerto Rico, meaning he had to pay tax there on his income. There are some minor loopholes you can use to write off portions of your income (per diem travel fees, etc), but in general, if you work out of country, you still owe taxes in the US on your income if you remain a citizen. (This is in fact one of the largest reasons people give up their citizenship when living abroad.)
Well there is a difference between where and what waters you serve on but that forum you try to offer is not legal, it is opinion, under the actual law if you are in international waters you do not “have” to pay taxes from your check, you can opt to file your own taxes and pay quarterly or yearly but you are missing the actual point.
He never lived in America and most likely never filed American tax returns, unless you can show me hard proof that he paid taxes to America it is simply not true because there is nothing in his past or even today that shows he ever had any connection to America in any way, shape, or form so being as paying taxes is voluntary when in international waters to the employer, I do not believe for a second he paid any taxes.
Do you have proof of that? Do you have some rig documents indicating he never took shore leave to the US, and never returned to America?
Oh right… You’re just make it up, and believing your own narrative.
One of the other news outlets said he had never been back to America and had no American processing entering America, not even one time. If you have something to refute that point I am right here ready to see it.
And here you go with your own ignorance. It’s not that he left for 5 years. It’s that:
Here you go again playing stupid, I said he never returned home as a point he abandoned America, not as a point of him earning the ability to pass down citizenship.
Try to keep up, lol.
I was the one educate you in every post that this topic is about how he did not live in America long enough to earn the right to pass down citizenship.
He could have come back a dozen times, for as many years as he wanted, but if it was after his sons birth, the point is moot.
Actually it is not, as I said before, he can move back to America anytime he wants, his son can come too and once living here it is a simple process to get his citizenship, Americans do it all the time, even adopt foreign babies and bring them home and process citizenship, takes about 6 months to get it done depending on circumstances, being as this is a natural birth and not an adoption it will be easier.
If he were not dead.
I was of course speaking in generalities concerning the issue, but remember he could have returned to America at any time, he made the “choice” to stay away till just before he died, nobody else is responsible for his “choices” but him.
The point of the case, and this article, is still this:
Had the gender of his parents been reversed, he would be a citizen.
Actually the court tossed that aspect out, fender is no longer an issue, try to keep up.
yet it does exactly the opposite in allowing inequality from the past century to stand.
So you would prefer they enact the ruling retroactively? What exactly are you demanding? There is no such thing as perfection, all laws have a few situations where it may seem a little messy but we are human beings and messy is part of our existence. They did the right thing is eliminating an unfair advantage only women benefitted from. The law should never discriminate based on gender.