I dodge nothing, but i do ignore irrelevant points designed to derail the conversation.
Louis Weeks
1

I dodge nothing, but i do ignore irrelevant points designed to derail the conversation.

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.

The quotes you mention have me discussing time spent in America and if they abandon America and such

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.

Another lie, there are no residency requirements to work in international waters,

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?

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.)

And took all his shore leave outside of America, and got a local girl pregnant, and never returned to America and even now does not live in America. Nuff said.

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.

As a statistical number how many 18 year olds decide to leave America? Out of those how many stay gone for more than 5 years without a single trip back “Home”?

And here you go with your own ignorance. It’s not that he left for 5 years. It’s that:

8 U. S. C. §1401(a)(7) (1958 ed.), required the U. S.-citizen parent to have ten years’ physical presence in the United States prior to the child’s birth, “at least five of which were after attaining” age 14.

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.

But that said he could move back to America and based on his own status

If he were not dead.

Did you read the filing? The father died when the child was 14. And he had returned to Puerto Rico, possibly to do the very thing you described, but died before he had the chance. For nearly 30 years, this “child” has lived in the US, be that in Puerto Rico or on the mainland in NY, completely legaly, btw.

The point of the case, and this article, is still this:
Had the gender of his parents been reversed, he would be a citizen. The fact that gender played a role in his citizenship is bogus. Thousands of children born in the same circumstances, with reversed gender parents, are still citizens. They’re not stripping citizenship from people who were born to unwed US mothers abroad in the 1960s through last month if that mother didn’t meet the 10 year residency requirement. Treating people equally is the entire argument of the ruling , yet it does exactly the opposite in allowing inequality from the past century to stand.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.