“Whoa! You have really got yourself tangled up in this stuff. Please understand that you are choosing to adopt the positions that you are adopting. None of this is compelled.
...
The obvious purpose of the NBC clause (coupled with the residency requirement) is to ensure that a president is selected from a pool of candidates who all have strong political connections to the United States by heritage and by personal experience (residence). Coupled with the residence requirement, a requirement that a candidate be a “citizen by birth” is more than adequate to protect us from strangers.”
Well, if “citizen by birth” was the criteria and would have satisfied the Founders, why didn’t they just say that? Why have they wasted all our time by using the term “natural born”?
So, what you’re saying is that you are choosing to believe that natural born citizen = citizen at birth = dual citizen at birth = triple citizen at birth = natural born subject at birth. And, that you’re not feeling compelled to believe that there’s a higher definition of natural born.
Okay by me. That’s the beauty of free will.
No, what I said was that I believe that natural born citizen = citizen at birth. As regards your concerns about "dual citizen at birth" or "triple citizen at birth," I said that I do not believe that we should permit foreign governments to decide for us who we can elect as our presidents. If, without my request, Canada should decide to view me as a Canadian citizen, I should not be prejudiced by that decision of the Canadian government. I have no control over how the Canadian government chooses to view me. I guess what you're saying is that if Iran were, without request, to confer Iranian citizenship on Jeb Bush, he'd be ineligible to be president because he would be "dual citizen."
Listen, if you really want to figure out a way to view Ted Cruz as ineligible, then you will find a way. But, there isn't anything about the text or history of the natural born citizen clause that compels such a conclusion.