From the text of the Bellei case, concerning a person born outside the US to a US citizen parent:
Majority opinion:
But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.
(Quoting Wong Kim Ark which I mis-named upthread. Sorry.)
From the second dissent:
Concededly, petitioner was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute . . . . naturalized overseas . . .
From the first dissent:
The Court in Wong Kim Ark thus stated a broad and comprehensive definition of naturalization. As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization, when used in its constitutional sense, is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization. This inclusive definition has been adopted in several opinions of this Court besides United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra.
Anyone who actually cares can easily look up Bellei and read it for yourself. See if you think the WT article is playing straight. (Bellei is a lot shorter and more recent than Wong Kim Ark.)
It may be intentional. Though I've found with the eligibility topic a healthy amount of legal and historical incompetence exists.
Though the author at least brings the Bellei case into public view. There have been a number of articles, including some by respected legal scholars, that have simply ignored the case (along with Wong Kim Ark) while asserting that "citizen at birth" equates to "natural born citizen" as regards children born abroad to U.S. citizens. It's been a curious thing to observe.
Anyone who actually cares can easily look up Bellei and read it for yourself. See if you think the WT article is playing straight.
Anyone who believes the Bellei case helps Cruz is either reading challenged or is blinded by partisanship.