The United States, after some initial uncertainty, acknowledged the right of citizens to renounce their birth allegiance. So I agree with you there, that in international law, one may renounce, not controlled by the nation of birth’s law.
What I do not agree with is that conferring American citizenship by birth is “grabbing” allegiance from an unwilling person. It still strikes me as a somewhat odd view of the value of American citizenship. I have yet to hear of anyone complaining of their allegiance being “grabbed” by obtaining American citizenship at birth. (And while there certainly were English abuses, as Calvin’s Case shows, there were great advantages to being an English subject, and it was considered desirable by many over being an alien or denizen.)
Further, that would not be a matter of “natural born” or the version of some on your side, “citizen at birth, but not natural born.” In your theory, either would be “grabbing” allegiance, so no distinction.
Once again, the courts over two centuries have not upheld this bizarre idea that citizenship at birth was an imposition on the newly made citizen. So it’s an interesting theory, not one the courts have ever endorsed, or I predict, ever will endorse.
There is NOW. *WE* Pioneered this concept. Prior to us, the Idea was completely unlawful.
What I do not agree with is that conferring American citizenship by birth is “grabbing” allegiance from an unwilling person. It still strikes me as a somewhat odd view of the value of American citizenship. I have yet to hear of anyone complaining of their allegiance being “grabbed” by obtaining American citizenship at birth. (And while there certainly were English abuses, as Calvin’s Case shows, there were great advantages to being an English subject, and it was considered desirable by many over being an alien or denizen.)
Your argument is this. Because it's valuable, everyone should want it, and therefore imposing it is no burden on them.
That it is valuable may be true. Some people feel that way about Christianity, and thought it was perfectly reasonable to impose it on others. This entire argument belies the fact that someone might not appreciate it's value, and might not want it regardless. :)
In our History, there are only two ways known to decide the citizenship of offspring. By being born to a citizen and inheriting their citizenship, or by being born somewhere, and being told that you are part of that land. One is natural, the other is an imposition to those who may not wish to be a part of that land. It does not matter that the land is rich and fertile, and that everyone SHOULD want it, it matters as to whether or not that is where their heart lies. (It's called freedom.)
I have a friend born in Alaska. I have other friends born in Japan. Those lands are not part of their life, yet if they were tied to them (as in the feudal system) then they must necessarily remain there, or in some way be forever held accountable by what transpires there. THIS is the aspect of jus soli which you do not appreciate.
Further, that would not be a matter of “natural born” or the version of some on your side, “citizen at birth, but not natural born.” In your theory, either would be “grabbing” allegiance, so no distinction.
Ah, but a characteristic of our citizenship is that you can renounce it if you wish. The English Common law of jus soli, upon which you say ours is based, does not permit the renunciation of allegiance to the sovereign. Your ties of soil bind you to his land. You are trying to argue that we accepted the one part of this law, while at the same time rejecting the other part. A rather inconsistent aspect of the principle, don't you think?
Once again, the courts over two centuries have not upheld this bizarre idea that citizenship at birth was an imposition on the newly made citizen. So it’s an interesting theory, not one the courts have ever endorsed, or I predict, ever will endorse.
It is not citizenship at birth which is an imposition. A Child follows the condition of it's parents. If they are French, you cannot suggest the child must be German. That the courts have never seen jus soli citizenship at birth as an imposition may very well be due to the fact that we don't have it as a requirement, as did the English. In this nation, you are able to dispense with all strings of attachment between this government and yourself, and so an attachment that is so easily thrown off cannot be regarded as an imposition, but the law upon which your theory was based disallowed this idea, at least until Queen Victoria permitted it back in the later 1800s.
All of this ignores the point. Jus Soli is a concept based on feudal law, not on the natural law the founders were familiar with. (Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Vattel et al.)
As it was based on Feudal law, it would have been thrown out with the rest of those Feudal aspects and anti-republican doctrines.