For Senator and Representative you use the term “Citizen”. The Constitution uses the “Citizen of the United States”.
This is the general class that consists of both natural born and naturalized citizens.
Senator Cruz did not have to be naturalized.
Senator Cruz did not have to be naturalized.
But what of James McClure? You yourself pointed out that John Armstrong described him as a "naturalized" citizen. John Armstrong was well aware that he was BORN in Charleston because McClure had the papers to prove it.
The fact that Armstrong referred to him as "naturalized" (and John Armstrong was in fact a Delegate of the US Congress in 1787 and therefore ought to know what was the common understanding of the time.) indicates that the United States did not follow the Jus Soli rule for citizenship, but instead explicitly followed the Partus Sequitur Patrem rule.
I think much of the common understanding of James McClure's citizenship status has remained undiscussed. We have a dichotomy here. We have a condition in which the facts do not comport with what is alleged to be the common understanding of the time.
Armstrong, in a confidential memorandum to James Madison, described James McClure as a "naturalized" citizen. How do you respond to this fact, seemingly in conflict with the argument you would have us believe?