[DiogenesLamp]

No Legal justification or proof supports that definition.

There is a mountain of it. Far more proof than supports the jus soli claim.

Just a bunch of conjecture of "what it should be" based on sources of information not included in the Constitution, US Law, or Supreme Court Ruling.

US Law does not define "natural born citizen." It is BEYOND THE AUTHORITY of US Law to define a constitutional term.

Someone who does not comprehend this is not worth arguing with.

[SoConPubbie]

US Law does not define "natural born citizen." It is BEYOND THE AUTHORITY of US Law to define a constitutional term.

Someone who does not comprehend this is not worth arguing with.

So, correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that US Law cannot define "Natural Born Citizen" But somehow, in a legal sense, Senator Cruz is to be held accountable, in terms of his LEGAL eligibility to be President, by something outside of US Law?

You don't see how nonsensical that is?

[xzins]

It is BEYOND THE AUTHORITY of US Law to define a constitutional term

I have to disagree with that. Congress was constitutionally given power over naturalization AND the power to make any laws necessary to implement that power.

So, to define who needs to be naturalized one MUST define who does not need to be naturalized, ie., those who are already natural.

[SoConPubbie]

There is a mountain of it. Far more proof than supports the jus soli claim.

Prove it, in context. Don't cherry pick your proof like most do on this issue.

Provide the rock-solid evidence, that removes all doubt, that to be President it requires two US Citizen Parents at birth. Prove it from the US Constitution, US Law, or Supreme Court ruling that proves your contention.

[CodeToad]

“It is BEYOND THE AUTHORITY of US Law to define a constitutional term. “

We define free speech. We define terms of the 2nd amendment.