I like Cruz as well, but his recent announcement of being a 'statutory natural born citizen' pretty much dashed any hopes I'd had of him clarifying the subject. Statutory natural born...what kind of Constitutional oxymoron is that? LOL!
-----
anyone who actually reads the First Congress’ Naturalization Act should have noticed that it was rescinded, entirely replaced by the 1795 Naturalization Act
I know! That 'this is what the Founders intended' works great, but when they turn around and repeal it just a few years later, it's pretty certain the 'intent' was merely to coincide with the grandfather clause, NOT to operate in perpetuity.
----
The 14th Amendment’s authority comes from Article 1 Section 8, the naturalization provision of the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment, IMHO, is another provision of limited duration. While it was never repealed, sovereignty CANNOT supplant sovereignty, so the only ability the federal government would have to declare anyone a citizen inside the country but outside the Authority of the several States was those who had none - the freed slaves.
Why? Because Nature abhors a vacuum.
----
I also agree that the original definition has been purposely muddled, as I've seen information 'disappear' or change on the Internet over time. Wong Kim Ark is always promoted as some kind of 'proof' being born here was enough to be natural born, but actually reading it shows as masterful a job of judicial cherry-picking as I've ever seen ...resulting in the creation of the 'naturalized AT birth meme' and country's first anchor baby.
-------
The “Foreign born Children of Military Citizens Natural born Citizen Act”. That act failed to pass
That was all SO dumb. Like Ambassadors and diplomats, people in the armed forces are considered to be in the service of the country no matter where they are. If the politicians hadn't been so desperate to 'tweak' things in their favor, they'd already see Vattel had covered that.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
-----
No, the whole natural born issue is easily ascertained by reading original works (instead of taking someones word for 'this is what it says'), paying attention to details, and using logic and reason.
Natural born citizenship is hereditary - you get it from your parents. Why? Because you can't be born into a country's Allegiance unless your parents are already there.
I respect the soundness of your point of view, however there is a legitimate argument on the other side.
The Founders and Framers who were in Congress in 1790, only two years after the adoption of the Constitution, saw fit to EXEMPT from needing to be naturalized “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.
And secondly, the Framers actually discussed in the Constitutional Convention whether foreign born American citizens could ever become president and they settled on the 14 year residence requirement as the way that could happen.
From George Bancroft’s “A History of the Formation of the Constitution of The United States of America” (1882): “One question on the qualifications of the president was among the last decided. On the twenty-second of August, the Committee of Detail, fixing the requisite age of the president at thirty-five, on their own motion, and for the first time required only that the president should be a citizen of the United States, and should have been an inhabitant of them for twenty-one years. On the fourth of September, the Committee of States, who were charged with all unfinished business, limited the years of residence to fourteen. It was then objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place; but, as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the seventh of September, it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who shall be citizens at the time of the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the Office of the President.” (Corroboration for the statements of Bancroft are to be found in Vol. 5 of Johathan Elliott’s “Madison Papers,” page 462, 507, 512 and 521, and in Vol. 3 of Henry D. Gilpin’s “Madison Papers” pages 1398 , 1437 and 1516)