[ought-six]

The ruling in Rogers confirms that Cruz can serve as president: He was born of an American (citizen) parent, and lived for 5 consecutive years in the U.S. between the ages of 14 and 28 (he came to the U.S. at age 4).

[Cboldt]

-- The ruling in Rogers confirms that Cruz can serve as president: He was born of an American (citizen) parent, and lived for 5 consecutive years in the U.S. between the ages of 14 and 28 (he came to the U.S. at age 4). --

I have no doubt that Cruz is a citizen, as you point out, he is a citizen because the relevant statute (8 USC 1401(g)) says so.

But dicta in Rogers says that citizenship at birth by operation of statute creates a naturalized citizen, under Congress's power to create rules of naturalization.

Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.

[Cboldt]

-- The ruling in Rogers confirms that Cruz can serve as president: He was born of an American (citizen) parent, and lived for 5 consecutive years in the U.S. between the ages of 14 and 28 (he came to the U.S. at age 4). --

FWIW, the residency requirement pertains to the citizen parent. Some past US laws pertaining to citizenship would strip citizenship from the child, if the child didn't meet residency requirements. That statutory "citizenship stripping" power (upheld in Rogers) does not play for a birth abroad in 1970. Cruz could have lived in Canada his whole life without losing his US citizenship.