“””Statements of intent made during debate on the floor of Congress are interesting, but are not definitive as to the meaning of a law.
Judicial decisions applying that law, OTOH, are definitive.”””
I’m asking how the courts’ supposed definition came about. Does a Brit born in the U.S. not owe allegiance to the U.K.? Does a child born abroad to U.S. citizens not owe allegiance to the U.S.?
Will the courts similarly rule that it’s okay if a U.S. citizen goes to China to commit treason against the U.S.? That it’s not a crime because it wasn’t committed within U.S. jurisdiction? Will the courts rule that said U.S. citizen can return to the U.S. free and clear of all criminal prosecution because the illegal act didn’t occur on U.S. soil?
Under present law in the two countries, I believe he has dual citizenship. Unless one of his parents has diplomatic immunity.
Does a child born abroad to U.S. citizens not owe allegiance to the U.S.?
Well, there's a pretty prominent example in history. W. Churchill. Mom was an American citizen, Dad a Brit politician. He had dual citizenship till he was 21, when he had to choose one or the other. If Cruz is eligible to be President, then presumably Winnie would have been had he chosen to be an American.
Will the courts similarly rule that it’s okay if a U.S. citizen goes to China to commit treason against the U.S.? That it’s not a crime because it wasn’t committed within U.S. jurisdiction? Will the courts rule that said U.S. citizen can return to the U.S. free and clear of all criminal prosecution because the illegal act didn’t occur on U.S. soil?
I think you're mixing up issues that have nothing to do with inheritance of citizenship. But I'm no lawyer, and I'll leave it to those who are to answer your questions.