The links sure seem to show the left being now “birthers”.
Whereas the right is wanting clarification, with some like Briebart seeing it as clearly Cruz is NBC.
“No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization — again, including Texas’s junior senator.” Therein lies the issue, that there is no defining authority on NBC. It obviously was never needed prior to nobama, because those who wanted to be candidates and who did not 100% meet NBC, were honest enough and didn’t force it as did nobama.
I think this is a subject to never be proven if the question of NBC is in a grey area, even by a stretch. One side or the other will always give them the benefit of the doubt.
Historical proof of one’s character should rule in those NBC grey area questions. With nobama, the left opted for “the end justifies the means”. I do not see the Right doing that.
I'm pretty certain that Cruz's status is NOT a gray area. He must either be ruled a non "natural born citizen", or the Supreme Court has to overturn Rogers v Bellei, because Bellei and Cruz have exactly the same legal circumstances of birth.
Bellei's citizenship was revoked because he did not adhere the requirements of the Congressional Statute which granted citizenship to those born in a foreign country of at least one American parent.
It is axiomatic that a "natural born citizen" cannot have his citizenship revoked for failing to adhere to the requirements of a congressional statute which granted him citizenship. A "natural" citizen needs no positive law to be a citizen. Any citizen who is only a citizen through the operation of some positive law, is not a "natural" citizen.