Someone born in Ireland is of Irish soil. Someone born in France is of French soil. Naturalization laws can't change that.
Jus soli, the "law (or right) of the soil", simply is and needs no law to be "put into effect".
Naturalization laws can't change where a person is born.
Naturalization laws allow someone to voluntarily change not only the place they live, but to whom it is that they pledge their allegiance.
Under my impression of Original Intent, you are not a jus soli citizen of the State of Texas, and it is man made law because it is based on English common law and requires the process of denizenation.
Oh, dear God! This isn't ENGLAND! This is AMERICA!
@DENIZEN, English law.
In the United States there is no such civil condition.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1100 ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY
7 FAM 1110 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
(Office of Origin: CA/OCS/PRI)
7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION (CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1100 ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY
7 FAM 1110 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
(Office of Origin: CA/OCS/PRI)
7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION (CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
d. Until 1866, the citizenship status of persons born in the United States was not defined in the Constitution or in any federal statute. Under the common law rule of jus soli—the law of the soil-persons born in the United States generally acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.
e. This rule was made part of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Statutes at Large 27) and, 2 years later, it was adopted as part of the 14th Amendment which states, in part, that:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside...”
f. The provisions of the Act of April 9, 1866 were reenacted in 1878 as Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes. Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes was repealed by the Nationality Act of 1940.
g. Section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940 provided that:
“the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) A person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) A person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property.”
Jus soli, the “law (or right) of the soil”, simply is and needs no law to be “put into effect”.
You are mistaken about that in a number of ways. First jus soli is common-law because it arose from man-made customary laws typically associated with feudal law, the law in which fealty are personal relationships of duty and loyalty to an individual person. The doctrine of jus soli came into popularity during the Middle Ages as individual conquerors used the othas of fealty to gain the allegiance of widely disparate societies, populations, cultures, faiths, and places. Since there were often no or limited lines of descent from parentage and/or place in these feudal polities, the jus sanguinis doctrine was incapable of creating and maintaining the needed cohesiveness for the lord’s dominions. The jus soli doctrine was man-made to solve this problem and was used as feudal customary law and subsequently became the common-law of many societies.
Common-law in the United States after the American REvolution came to be codified in state statutory law and Federal statutory law. In particular jus soli citizenship rights were codified in U.S. Federal law with the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Statutes at Large 27) and the subsequent 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
No, REALLY?
You have obviously been so twisted to believe the federal government has the right to define EVERYTHING, that you haven't even been listening to anything.
You know those big leather-bound tomes lawyers have behind their desks? This is one of the guys who wrote them:
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. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
-----
In the United States there is no such civil condition.
Now, no. Why? BECAUSE THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUIONAL!
The mode by which an alien may become a citizen, has a specific appellation which refers to the same principle. It is descriptive of the operation of law as analogous to birth, and the alien, received into the community by naturalization, enjoys all the benefits which birth has conferred on the other class.
Until these rights are attained, the alien resident is under some disadvantages which are not exactly the same throughout the Union. The United States do not intermeddle with the local regulations of the states in those respects. Thus an alien may be admitted to hold lands in some states, and be incapable of doing so in others. On the other hand, there are certain incidents to the character of a citizen of the United States, with which the separate states cannot interfere.
William Rawle
---------
You are perfectly free to believe whatever you wish, but the next time you're forced to stand there with your organ in your hand while government gives preferential treatment to their chosen class of citizens, I do hope you'll think back to this little conversation and realize just what I was trying to get you to understand.
Until then, enjoy your unlimited government.