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.
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
-- Romney's went to court (didn't it? I'm no expert), McCain's birth was challenged in the Senate (if memory here serves). Did the Senate make John McCain a natural born citizen, or was McCain born a citizen at birth (naturally, under considerations of the law at the time of his birth) and that was merely determined to be the case when the details of his birth (and the laws) were examined in a Senate hearing? --
I don't know the details of old-man Romney's case (I do know he was born in Mexico, I just haven't read the legal briefs). S.Res.511 is a farce. It claims the naturalization act of 1790 contains a definition, and after a bit of handwaving says essentially, "a naturalized citizen is a natural born citizen." McCain's birth is covered by the predecessor to 8 USC 1403. McCain is a naturalized citizen, same as Cruz, and same as all other citizens born abroad.
-- Naturally a citizen at birth, under laws in effect at the time of one's birth. What other definition is there? --
Citizen under the constitution, and not citizens under the constitution.
-- I myself, was born of parents who themselves were born as citizens (going back to the mid-1700's even). Since I am among those who's conditions of birth are also listed in the same statutes which stipulate who is to be considered born a citizen ... --
You are covered by the constitution, even if the statute is out of view. Art IV, Sec. 2, and "born in the US" part of the 14th amendment.
Cruz is not covered by the constitution, if the statute is held out of view. His citizenship depends on an Act of Congress.
For arguably both better and worse, that answer's great weakness is that when pointing towards the Constitution, that does include pointing towards and thus legitimizing the powers of Congress to provide refinement of just what the definition of "natural born citizen" may mean in application.
Or would one care to argue here and now that that sort of thing, making determinations of that nature, must be rigorously reserved for the Judiciary?
Thank you for addressing that aspect of the various points discussed, yet that answer appears to include reliance upon an assumed definition of "natural born" that is limited to what mentions and usages of that phrase there can be found within law to Constitutional provisions alone, yet lacking the necessary step of having had those portions of U.S. Code which I have cited ruled unconstitutional, or else otherwise repealed by Congress. To do so, carrying that fault, that lack of repeal for the code through legal process forwards as if the cited portion of 8 U.S. Code was not at time of Senator Cruz';s birth sufficiently extant is to arbitrarily set aside the statutory provisions of that code (here again a link for other possible readers)
as entirely inapplicable, unable to be consulted, thus be entirely shut out, unavailable to us all in order to refine/better define what went before (in legal/legislative/applicability senses) including also shutting the door on the portions of the same English common law from which the Constitution itself was strongly influenced.
That common law included provisional recognition among the then working definitions of "natural born" encompassing citizenship be in various instances conveyed to offspring through parentage, even at times under certain conditions lacking jus soli. Though when it did so in those past eras, it chiefly conveyed citizenship through paternal parentage when considering parentage alone as decisive factor.
Nowadays, after portions of the remainder of the laws of our land have been modified to extend to, and as hopeful bulwark guarantee for equal citizenship rights as towards women, the spirit of that same common law would be among their joint inheritance, extending to ability to convey citizenship maternally in each instance where before it would have been, or better said COULD have been conveyed through paternal parentage, alone, and/or most primarily. That sets strong precedence for there being need for only one parent to have been a citizen at time of one's birth for each child of a U.S. citizen mother to be a full-fledged citizen of the United States.
To set aside the above cited U.S code is a rather arbitrary restriction upon Congress. Can not the provisions of that portion of U.S code be seen as further refinement of just who is qualified to be considered a citizen at birth? I argue here that it be an impossibility not to.
Yet sufficient statutory delineation going into close enough detail to stipulate that citizenship was conveyed upon Mr. Cruz at time of his own birth due to the conditions of the birth (his mother a full-fledged citizen of the United States) WAS "in view" at the time of his birth.
I do not believe that we could now, even if we desired to, hold those statutory provisions which were in view, behind our backs (thus satisfying the provisional "if" of the "if the statute is held out of view" portion of a crucial element in the reasoning which was presented).