Incorrect.
We are a nation of laws. The government is controlled and bound by laws. The law defines those who are citizens at birth and do not need naturalization. Without the laws that define those who are citizens at birth, there would not be any naturally born citizens.
What about the 14th amendment?
Without the laws that define those who are citizens at birth, there would not be any naturally born citizens.
From the article, where it quotes the supreme court majority opinion in Rogers v. Bellei, the supreme court says:
[O]ur law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.
The concept of overlapping laws was a challenging idea for some of us in our first year of law school. What folks also don’t seem to realize here is once you open up the discussion to sources outside the constitutional text, vattel etc., you are not talking about binding authority anymore. Citizenship as a function of natural process and natural law does not depend on the authority of the laws or the scholars that try to describe it. By definition, it occurs naturally. Cruz would have been a citizen by inheritance from his mother, with or without a statutory framework. It’s really a no-brainier.
Peace,
SR