[David]

I don't think you read my question. Both Cruz and Bellei obtained citizenship at birth. Do you agree with that? The "citizenship retention" question isn't relevant to their status at birth. -- you will see Cruz came to the US when he was 4 years old and maintained residence here until the present time which showed that he fulfilled all the statutes to retain his natural born citizenship. --

Please directly quote the language from Rogers v. Bellei that says Bellei had natural born citizenship, and explain how that passage overrides:

I thought you had given up playing lawyer on this topic.

The language you quote is just self serving dictum from the dissent in Bellei. Its irrelevant.

Your entire argument is founded on the premise that a person who is a naturalized citizen cannot also be "natural born" for purposes of Article II, Sec. 1. There is nothing I can see in Bellei or any where else of which I am aware that makes that the law--it is just argument on your part. The Supreme Court might come down that way; it might not.

The argument to the contrary is simple--a person who is a US citizen at birth as a consequence of his birth; is literally a "natural born" citizen wherever the birth occurs. Fact that he gets the citizenship under the statute and the naturalization power is not relevant to the discussion.

Bellei simply lost his citizenship under a condition which was attached to it; Cruz didn't.

If tasked to do so, I would further argue that the result is not far off the result the founders intended.

Mr. Jay was concerned about exercise of sovereignty of the head of state of the place of birth over a person who subsequently became a US Citizen. The level of that concern was founded on generally understood then principles of International Law which would not have the same impact in modern times.

That argument is particularly telling under factual conditions presented here by Cruz because there was no period of time between his birth and the time at which he became a citizen.

[Cboldt]

I cited other cases. They are uniform on the point.

Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and "can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress."

That is from a concurring opinion in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)

-- Your entire argument is founded on the premise that a person who is a naturalized citizen cannot also be "natural born" --

That is correct. A citizen is such either under the constitution, without resort to an Act of Congress, or they are naturalized.

Again, the case law is uniform on this. I do understand that you find your point of view supior to SCOTUS. But you are a kook.