“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
So let's break this down as the SCOTUS ruled in 1868 & reaffirmed in 1884, that the language of the Constitution does in deed define who that natural born citizens are.
All persons born “IN” the United States.. Ted Cruz fails this test
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.. this includes not only local jurisdiction, but also political jurisdiction and since Cruz was subject to neither at birth, he also fails this part of the test
is a citizen of the state wherein they reside at birth... also, a HUGE fail for Ted Cruz.
This isn't complicated, although lawyers would like us to think so because that is how they make their money, by obfuscating the law. The Library of Congress, on citizenship and immigration and naturalization states that from 1790 to 1950, women and children were of the nationality of their husband/father respectively. Only through congressional legislation did that change and that legislation, that is the actual law, not the code as the code is only evidence of the actual laws that govern, is that which all judges go to when deciding cases. The actual law that governed at the time Cruz was born, and when he came to the US at the age of 4, states that Cruz entered the US as a “non-quota” immigrant. Only after the parents residing with the child in the US for the required numbers of years, did Cruz become a US citizen because of his mother's citizenship. Cruz is not a natural born citizen, no way, no how. Rubio also because at the time of his birth, that same law states that children born to Cuban refuges in the US are aliens at birth and remain so until that parents naturalize or upon their coming of age, the child seeks US citizenship.
So do not let these obfuscating constitutional ignoramuses make you feel as if you can't know the law because you didn't receive some liberal law school degree. the law is not complicated if one has educated themselves into the “terms of art” that define the law, a.k.a. words that no longer hold their common meaning because the law specifically gives them another definition.
We the people through our representatives in Congress make the laws and therefore we are to be able to read them and understand them. And I have found that this is not hard to do when the statutes have definitions in them such as the 1965 Immigration & Nationality Act that states:
“Non-quota” immigrant: a child born in a foreign country to one US citizen parent and one alien parent
Doesn't get much clearer than that!
You are correct that Cruz is not eligible to be President, and you correctly state reasons why according to the 14th ammendment, Cruz was NOT even a U.S. citizen at birth.
To further clarify, the 14th ammendment defines citizen at birth, NOT “Natural Born Citizen” which is not mentioned anywhere in that ammendment.
To understand that, look to Emer de Vattel, who defined a ‘natural-born citizen’ in his highly acclaimed and influential “The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns,” Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English) and to several Supreme Court cases that cite Vattel and his explanation of “Natural Born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents, such as:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had
elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who
were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-
born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as
citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to
this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was
never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became
themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as
distinguished from aliens or foreigners.