I've been doing some digging today and it's obvious to me that the question of Cruz's citizenship was completely governed by the provisions of the 1952 immigration and naturalization act. Under that act's provisions he would have to fulfill certain residency requirements as a young adult, or his citizenship would go bye-bye.
Natural born citizens' status are not controlled by statute. It's a fact of nature.
If Ted Cruz was a natural born citizen, he would have been a citizen regardless of what our immigration and naturalization statutes require.
He would have been a natural born citizen no matter when in American history he had been born.
Which quite obviously isn't the case. There's no way he would have been even a citizen from birth throughout most of American history, because of the way our statutes read.
I repeat my initial question: How can a Constitutional requirement be changed by mere statute?
Because the Constitution does not define "natural born citizen," we must look to the law to define it. If the birthers are correct that there are multiple types of born citizens, why doesn't the law reflect this? Why has not a single judge ever accepted such an argument?