It's kind of discouraging to see this kind of comment.
AFAIK, nobody is arguing that Cruz is not a US citizen. The discussion is about whether he's a "natural-born citizen."
He’s being a little too flippant about a serious Constitutional matter for potential personal gain, which leads me to suspect his bona fides as a Constitutional conservative.
“The People” appears to be a very malleable construct to him, subject to the whims of legislation. Essentially, he’s avowing that he’s Constitutionally eligible via unrelated statute.
Not a good sign, imho. He’ll betray himself elsewhere, Imho, probably over international tribalism like Rubio. The only “tribe” with which he should concern himself is identified in the Constitution, We The People.
Given that he owes his claim of American Citizenship to an act passed by Congress in 1934, it is hard to argue that this sort of citizenship is what the founders had in mind in 1787.
Aldo Mario Bellei had the exact same sort of citizenship. One that was apparently not proof against challenge. He lost his citizenship because he failed to adhere to the requirements specified in the law which GRANTED him citizenship.
Hard to make an argument that this sort of citizenship is "natural" when it requires an act of congress to create it, AND you can lose it. Can't see an actual "natural" citizen losing his citizenship for failing to have done something.