This was the crux of the birther argument against Obama. If Obama was born in Kenya, what is the difference between his situation and that of Cruz? How would Obama be sunk if had been born out of the country, but not Cruz as well? As it stands now, Obama has a stronger argument as a NBC than Cruz.
Because according to the law at the time, Obamas mother was not old enough to pass on US citizenship to him. She was only 18 - needed to be 19.
The difference between Obama were he indeed born in Kenya and Cruz is that under prevailing citizenship law at the time, were Obama born outside the US he would not even be a US citizen because there was a requirement that if the father was a non-US citizen, the mother have resided in the US for five years after having reached the age of 14 to transmit US citizenship to her children, a standard Dunham could not have met since five years had not elapsed since her 14th birthday when Obama was born, while under prevailing citizenship law at the time of Cruz’s birth we became a citizen at the moment of his birth.
If “natural born citizen” simply means citizen from the time of birth, Cruz “birtherism” is not a viable position, and Obama “birtherism” depends upon his having been born outside the US. Of course in Obama’s case there is also the question of whether his mother’s renunciation of US citizenship to accept Indonesian citizenship applied to her minor child. Unfortunately, none of this will be properly adjudicated by the courts, since they are unwilling to deal with political “hot potatoes” of this sort.