That's right, it isn't. Nor should it be as the definition of natural born is ultra vires, or outside the legal scope and authority of Man, and thus, Man's creation known as 'government'.
-----
The naturalization process is about granting citizenship, isn't it?
Yes the process is, but the general government was never granted the jurisdiction over the entire 'process' of naturalization. Only to make a uniform Rule for it. By the wording of the constitutional article itself, there must have already been a 'process' for naturalization in place, and their was.
By the common law of England, only the King could make denizens, but in America, we have no King.....but we did have Sovereign States.
A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. In the states of Kentucky and Virginia, the privileges of alien friends depended upon the constitution of each state, the acts of their respective legislatures, and the common law; by these they were considered, according to the time of their residence, and their having complied with certain requisitions pointed out by these laws, either as denizens, or naturalized citizens. As denizens, they were placed in a kind of middle state between aliens and natural born citizens; by naturalization, they were put exactly in the same condition that they would have been, if they had been born within the state, except so far as was specially excepted by the laws of each state. The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever.
St. George Tucker
The making of the rule for naturalization is a process that can begin only after the State has made them denizens.
-----
It seems to me that the word "uniform" discounts your assertion. Don't naturalization laws have to be "uniform" from State to State and require a standard for all?
Yes. Although again we have the difference between rule making and rule implementation.
------
However, I'll always be a Texan in my heart no matter where I live due to being born here.
There are probably a lot of us that feel that way. :-)
-----
So am I not a U. S. Citizen as well as a Texas Citizen or a Citizen of whichever State in which I live?
It's more like -
Because you are a Citizen of the State of Texas, you are a citizen of the united States.
And yet this is where you've got me confused on your view of the jus sanguinis/jus soli aspect.
You say...'jus soli' is only acquirable by laws. and yet I don't see that in action here.
Aren't I a jus soli Citizen of Texas, since I was born in Texas, and isn't that natural law, not man made law.