You said, Ted Cruz is ‘citizen at birth under the 1952 naturalization act’
There you have it - his birth status is conferred by a naturalization act, NOT by NATURE!
‘citizen at birth’ is NOT the same as Natural born citizen!
Natural born citizen is citizen by nature - birth in the country to citizens of the country - CITIZEN WHO DOES NOT need anything else (RULES OR LAWS OR ACTS) to make him/her citizen, and, whose natural born citizen status cannot be taken away by anything (not Congress, not acts, not laws....)
Your point is well taken.
I was born in Brooklyn NY to a father and mother, both of them also born in Brooklyn, with four US born parents (my grandparents).
No affirmative act by Congress was or is necessary to establish my citizenship. When I applied for a passport, my proof of citizenship was my birth certificate.
I am, undoubtedly, a natural born citizen.
Although much of the above is quite right, I do not believe, am not persuaded that it is entirely, fully correct.
You have introduced element of jus soli (right of the soil) as unequivocally necessary in order to establish applicable definition of just how "natural born" citizen in all historic instances was applied, yet did not include considerations towards how at the time of adoption of the Constitution, exceptions to that element of jus solis were, under particular conditions considered and included both in practice and application.
Those exceptions later became, after a fashion, enshrined in law of the land under INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH.
As long as a birth was after adoption of that Act, which Act was obviously enough intended as clarification towards definition of the parameters for qualification of conveyance of citizenship (either from parent to child, or by jus soli alone, and/or various combinations or parentage with & without element of jus soli) at time of birth, then an individual born under those assembled delineated conditions, is born a citizen, thus naturally born a citizen, if you will.
The jus soli aspect, as for that alone being enough to establish irrevocable citizenship, I personally would like to see changed as price of any contemplation towards "comprehensive immigration reform" if that included aspects which smack of amnesty for those who have broken this nation's laws by having entered illegally. But I digress.
Historical working understanding of the concept "natural born" does indeed include that citizenship cannot be taken away through say, Acts of Congress, as you mentioned (and so my own desire to have changes of the law cannot be retroactively applied, which is ok with me, in fact is preferable in my own opinion) yet you've arbitrarily excluded Acts of Congress also be included within definition/conceptual understanding of the phrase natural born though perhaps without realizing that, yourself possibly echoing that part of the various arguments which had been raised (barring any other considerations than those discussed here) against Obama's technically qualifying to be seated as acting POTUS.
The concepts delineated in NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH I do believe are inclusive of being born a citizen under the laws of the land as those were at the time of one's birth.
Meaning that if, and when in those instances which ARE delineated by law to convey U.S. citizenship when a person is born to an American citizen (father, or mother, or of course both) one is born considered to be a citizen at THAT time, it following then that one is in that manner, a "natural born" citizen.
“There you have it - his birth status is conferred by a naturalization act, NOT by NATURE!”
You’re ridiculous. Do you even comprehend your own words?
Do you suppose that the citizenship fairy appears out of the ether whenever a baby is born and stamps its bottom with its natural born citizenship status?
citizen - a legally recognized member of a nation
born - what happens at birth
natural - conveyed naturally (in this case from the parents)
A natural born citizen is a citizen at birth where the citizenship is conveyed by virtue of the citizenship of the parents.
You and half of the members of this forum are way over complicating things.
It is not magical. The phrase can be expressed other ways. It is just a simple way of putting it.
The first naturalization act in 1790 conveyed citizenship to children of US citizens born abroad. This fact demolishes your legal theory. Otherwise you have to argue that the founders who ratified the Constitution 18 months earlier passed an unconstitutional naturalization act.