“he wasn’t naturally born in the US”
He wasn’t born IN the US at all.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
According to “Mr Cruz” himself (his Senate staff spokesman), there are only two types of United States citizens. One, when born, is a citizen. Two, when born, is not a citizen, but later becomes a citizen through the naturalization process.
Mr Cruz himself claims that natural born citizen refers to the first type. The day you are born, you are a citizen. He further states that this is based not on the soil where the citizen mother drops the baby, but the American citizenship of the mother, if she is of age (18 or older).
The second type is not a citizen at birth (natural born), but has to become a citizen by later becoming naturalized. It is this second type that is not eligible to run for president.
We do know (and he knows, of course) that the US has recognized anchor babies in this country - a non citizen crosses the border and gives birth on this soil. That is an aberration of the law. It should be ended. Unfortunately it has not only hurt our sovereignty but it has helped to confuse people like yourself about citizenship law.
What if Congress passes a law which naturalizes anyone born to a mother with green eyes? Does this make their children "natural born citizens"?
(And please do not come back with "congress would never pass such a law." That is beside the point. Congress HAS the power to pass such a law. The point is whether or not Congress can make "natural born citizen" mean whatever it wants to. )
That's based on statutory law, and statutory law can be changed at the whim of Congress.
-- the US has recognized anchor babies in this country - a non citizen crosses the border and gives birth on this soil. That is an aberration of the law. It should be ended. --
This is going to get complicated, because babies born on US soil are subject to the jurisdiction of the US - so see 14th amendment, and discover that this type of citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th amendment. In order to repair this issue, now you'll need a constitutional amendment. I think it's too bad, because I think "subject to the jurisdiction" has been misconstrued, from Wong Kim Ark and forward. Thank you (spit), Chester A Arthur.