A pertinent example of the kinds of people this amendment was apparently intended to bar from entry to the US:

"One example discussed was Kenneth Dart of Dart Container, who had become a citizen of Belize and then attempted to obtain a diplomatic visa to serve as Belize's new consul in Sarasota, Florida."

Still seems relatively safe:

> The Department of Homeland Security has stated that they cannot obtain the information required to enforce the amendment unless the former U.S. citizen "affirmatively admit[s]" his or her reasons for renouncing citizenship, and so from 2002 to 2015, only two people were denied entry to the United States on the grounds of the amendment.

From that article:

"The wording of the statute is embarrassing. How can an alien renounce U.S. citizenship? In what capacity would said alien do so officially? One assumes that a court of law would find the language incoherent and unenforceable ... This is the way we legislate at 5 o'clock in the morning 4 days before adjournment."

Nice to see lawmakers falling to the specter of trying to get that commit in for the next release, along with the rest of us.

One could actually say they push code, although "code" in this context means law.

If you dig through legislation it begins to look like a Git repository, with patches adding and removing parts of the content and branches that if successful generate their own patches as well.

Legal documents aren't code, but they do share many of the same principles and constraints - GIGO applies to both programs and contracts...