Talk:United States nationality law

message: I have WP:BOLDly removed the following content added recently in this edit by @SusanW here for discussion:
I am not by any stretch of the imagination an expert on the topic of this article, but (1) I don't see hwat this sentence adds to the paragraph from which I removed it and (2) there seems to my inexpert eye to be a problem with it. 
The source to which the cite refers is this and page 7 there contains a sentence reading: "In 1900, in a law that remains in force, the Congress extended the Constitution in its entirety to the ninth area, Palmyra Atoll." I think that the 1900 law described as remaining in force in that source is the Hawaiian Organic Act, which (I think) can be seen at "chap. 339" here and section 5 of which provides, "That the Constitution [...] shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States". The Territory of Hawaii at the time included Palmyra Atoll, and the Act specified neither specially nor specifically that the US Constitution was applicable to that atoll but, more widely, to the entire territory of Hawaii of which the atoll was a part.
Plamyra Atoll was not separated from Hawaii by that 1900 Act but by the 1959 Hawaii Admission Act. Once separated, having been incorporated into the US along with the rest of the territory in 1900, it remained an incorporated territory while the rest of Hawaii became a State. Beyond that, my problem re (2) above is that in the context of the paragraph from which I removed this snippet that snippet seems to be referring specially and specifically to Palmyra Atoll, and that confused me; also, re (1) above, I don't think that the sentence adds anything to the paragraph even absent my confusion.
I hope that is clear -- it took me a lot of work to figure out. If I've screwed this up, please feel free to add the snippet back in and accept my apology for the screwup. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good sleuthing. Perhaps sourcing can be found to confirm the dates you have stated? The issue is that when I discovered the article, while trying to research women's nationality, there was very little sourcing for anything in it. I tried to keep relevant information and find sourcing for all of the information in the article. The only source I could find on the Palmyra Atoll was the one I included, which clearly does show the constitution is fully applicable there. Perhaps you have access to different references, than I do in Mexico. SusunW (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palmyra Atoll 

message: "If the birth occurred prior to or after October 14, 1940, [...]" was confusing and didn't make much sense. It appeared here.  The supporting source cited covers the period after that date, so I WP:BOLDLY removed "prior to or". The article is missing info re the period prior to that date. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: When reading the cited PDF , top paragraph on p. 4 of the PDF says that it applies "whether born before or after the effective date of this Act". So, it applied retroactively as well as on a go-forward basis. I expect the "prior to or after" wording was an attempt to capture this.  The final page of the PDF states that it was effective 90 days after its 10/14/40 approval. I took a shot at clarifying the language, although it might be a bit convoluted. CAVincent (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding the I-Am-Not-A-Lawyer disclaimer. Specifically, I may be misunderstanding the last paragraph on p. 3, or missing something elsewhere in the law. Happy to be corrected if I am misunderstanding or misstating the law. Oh, also, my guess is that this law was retroactive specifically to address the period prior to that date (otherwise an absence noted in Wtmitchell's comment). CAVincent (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wording and missing info