The gist of the case was that the plaintiff argued he was a natural born citizen under the 14th Amendment. The court quite rightly ruled he was not. The court also noted that he was not a U.S. citizen at all because his father, while a naturalized citizen, did not meet the requirements defined in 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 to pass natural-born citizenship status to his son.
In Cruz's case his mother did meet the requirements outlined by law - U.S. citizen physically present in the U.S. for at least five years prior to birth, two of which were after she was fourteen - and therefore Cruz is a natural-born citizen. The two cases are not at all similar.
“In Cruz’s case his mother did meet the requirements outlined by law - U.S. citizen physically present in the U.S. for at least five years prior to birth, two of which were after she was fourteen - and therefore Cruz is a natural-born citizen.”
Wrong, because that is an impossibility. You are trying to cite a naturalization law as the justification for th acquisition of U.S. citizenship by Ted Cruz, and then you contradict yourself by falsely claiming Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. Ted Cruz cannot be a naturalized U.S. citizen by his mother and a natural born citizen. If Ted Cruz were a natural born citizen, he could not be made into a naturalized citizen in order to qualify for U.S. citizenship. That’s pure irrational and crazy talk. Ted Cruz acquired U.S. citizenship at birth under the authority of the previously quoted U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. That fact automatically disqualifies Ted Cruz from having any physical means whatsoever to qualify as a natural born citizen of the United States.
At any rate, I was replying to a post that implied being born-abroad on a US military base was the same as being born on US soil. The Thomas case speaks directly to that contention.