Okay, so one should always read all the way to the end, right? And I didn’t (because I was rushing, which is an explanation but not an excuse.)
The provision discussed in the previous post would, it seems to me, help a married man/woman where 1) both are US citizens and 2) the man is the genetic father and 3) the woman is either the genetic mother OR both the gestational and the legal mother. Essentially I think that means instances where a couple uses a donor egg, the husband’s sperm and the wife gestates/gives birth.
But if you look further down in the full notice you’ll see this language:
If the child is biologically related to a U.S. citizen mother, but not her spouse, the case would be treated as a birth out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen
mother, and would have to meet the requirements of INA 309(c).
According to the referenced section an “out of wedlock mother” can only transmit citizenship by being genetically related.
I didn’t really mean to get into the intricacies of immigration law with the last post. That’s a specialty area I don’t know a lot about. I just wanted to flag the new use of “biologically related” that cropped up. Should have left it there.