Cruz's mother apparently had no similar problem with conveying her citizenship to her son, no matter where he was born, but she should release her own long form birth certificate ASAP just to avoid unnecessary questions.
Best answer.
There is a broader political question that needs to be considered. The loyalty of the parents to the United States. Obama’s father was an alien and his mother all but alienated from her country. Obama’s loyalty to this country can be questioned by the lack of any deep emotional ties. The woman he married certainly doesn’t show any deeper loyalty than his mother did. By contrast, Cruz’s father and mother both have lives deeply rooted in this country, as do the immigrant parents of the sentry from Florida. In using the word “natural” the writers of the Constitution were deeply interested that no candidate have conflicting political loyalties. It was wide suspicion about the loyalty of Catholics to the papacy that kept anyone of that faith from being elected president until 1960.
You hit the nail on the head. Stanley Ann Dunham was too young to confer citizenship to her son.
Nine months before Obama’s birth would be early November 1960, about three to four weeks before Stanley Ann’s 18th birthday on November 29, 1960. In that day, she was so young (17 years-old), that 24 year-old Barack Senior may have been arrested for statutory rape. So, to avoid that possibility, Stanley Ann may have opted to have Barack out of country, in Kenya; while they were asking for the father’s blessing on his bigamous marriage.
Obama's mother's age was moot. His father was an alien. That was the law after September of 1787 and still is. After over twenty five attempts to amend the Constitution, the definition for a natural born citizen has not changed. It is amazing and sad to see so many discarding the Constitution for a man who is both dishonest and ineligible, but who publicly proclaims political positions that please a sector of the electorate. It isn't the first time.
While Cruz claimed he was "as eligible to the presidency as Barack Obama" he was being honest. When he said he was made a natural born citizen by Wong Kim Ark, which quoted and cited Minor v. Happersett, he is either showing ignorance of the law, or lying. Wong was made a citizen, not natural born, having been born on our sovereign soil, but to parents who not citizens. Justice Gray proclaimed that his case was based upon the 14th Amendment, which explicitly does not mention natural born citizens. It is a naturalization amendment based upon Article 1 Section 8, directing Congress "To establish an Uniform Rule for Naturalization."
Support for Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and previously, Haley, may be a deliberate tactic to divide conservatives, some of whom have actually read The Constitution and perhaps a few of the key cases. Most of those upon whom many depend for legal interpretation have avoided the issue. Mark Levin didn't avoid it, and lied, citing the 1790 Nationality Act from the First Congress. Mark neglected to inform that the Act was entirely rescinded in 1795.
That was the same ploy used by Larry Tribe and Ted Olson in their letter to the Obama-McCaskill-Leahy-Clinton team who co-sponsored Senate Resolution", SR 511 in April 2008, the "Senator John McCain Natural Born Citizen Resolution. Obviously, all of them lawyers, they had no reason to sponsor a Senate Bill if they thought McCain was eligible. Tribe and Olson cited the same bill used by Levin to claim Cruz was a natural born citizen from the 1790 Congress and failed to note that it was erased, and association of foreign born children of citizens and natural born citizenship never again addressed by Congress - because it is a violation of separation of powers. Congress can introduce amendments to the Constitution, but laws passed by Congress cannot amend the Constitution or interpret its articles.
As the discussion gains steam, and providing Cruz gains political traction, Hillary's team will stir the eligibility issue and we may be left with a Jeb Bush, or worse. Hillary has traded our uranium ore, the lives of thousands of soldiers, Christians in Syria and Egypt and Egyptian Muslims who hated the Muslim Brotherhood, one of whose members was her chief of staff, Huma Abeden, for payoffs. It is a protection racket, protecting the Saudi Families, whom we now appear to have abandoned, of which the mafia would be proud.
If "Conservatives" can be divided, isolating those who have read our nation's first law book, Vattel's Law of Nations, and read the uncorrupted cases in which natural born citizenship was explained clearly and unequivocally, but not necessary to the decision - dictum - as in The Venus or Wong Kim Ark, or the cases where it was, Minor v. Happersett - precedent - Perkins v. Elg, and others, the house will be divided. The law in this case is on Hillary's side and she can probably use it without dragging in Obama, who has done his damage with the acquiescence of both parties. This time, if the Supreme Court's progressive majority decides to hear a case they can be Consitutional Originalists. They would have nothing to lose.
Obama’s has stated that he was born a British citizen since his father, according to him, was Kenyan in 1961. Obama has no rightful claim to running for president. We are living in a post constitutional America. Senator Rand Paul has appeared online with Senator Ted Cruz, they are both committed to the constitution
At best, Obama was an Anchor Baby.
His Mother did not meet the Five Years of Residency Requirement to transfer Citizenship to him from what I’ve read. Naturalized versus Citizen at Birth.