the court did go through that situation in the wescott case. it said yes, that is what we have been doing in all these cases. in the sarah case, we said we didn't discriminate. you get the quarters allowance that up until now has only been available to male officers. in another case, it recognized it had to do that. >> absolutely. in many of the benefits cases, the same analysis was available. and that is the analysis that we are asking that the court apply here. >> you are asking, i think, that the court pronounce your client to be a united states citizen. isn't that the only pronouncement from a court that is going to do your client any good? >> well, justice -- >> a united states citizen. >> this is a criminal case, so technically what we are asking is for a reversal of the judgment -- >> reversal of the judgment on the grounds that your client is a united states citizen, right? >> that it would be possible for him on these facts to become a united states citizen, yes. >> that he is a united states citizen. >> that he is. do you have any oth

-- and the wescott case. he says yes, that's who we been doing in all these cases and fair frontier of case. we didn't say it was discriminated against, congress to fix it. we said you get the court will allow us up until now has been available only to male officers and wiesenthal. the father had the same child in care benefits is another. the court was making a decision for extension. it recognized it had to do be there. >> in many of the benefits case, the same analysis was available and that the analysis that we are asking that the court apply here. >> mr. hubachek, you are asking, i think, that the court pronounce your client to be united states citizens. isn't that the only pronouncement from a court that is going to be for your clients? [inaudible] >> this is a criminal case, so asking berbers of the judgment an opportunity to present this -- >> reversal of the judgment on the grounds that your client is a united states citizen, right? >> that it would be possible for him on the to become united states

that's what wescott said. one can go one way, then the other way. they can't get any fine tuning because it is there. it all goes back to congress to do what it will come but it is just interim, we need a solution. >> and certainly congress could do that. if the brief makes clear what was being balanced it was concerns about according to them anyway, concerned to statements on the one hand and connections to the united states on the other. if congress hadn't assumed based on gender stereotypes that men were not caring for children, then it would've been able to put them in the same category as women because they would understand that both of them would be caring for children. it's not just these situations in 1940. as time has gone on, i believe in the national women's center brief points out the number of men who are raising children in single parent families has been increasing over time. so the problem, if anything, is getting worse. >> the congress did make at least some change, right? it's no longer five years that it's only two years. >> the c