There are but two types of citizenship, natural born and naturalized. The constitution does not give power to Congress or the courts to confer or deny natural born status to anyone. The power to establish a process to naturalize is given to Congress and not to the courts, thus court cases should not be part if the debate. Congress has decided that some people born on U.S. soil are citizens and some are not. Those that are declared citizens are technically naturalized at birth by law. Those who are not declared citizens, such as children of foreign diplomats, are excluded by law.
If your citizenship is established by law, then you are not natural born.
There are not very many combinations to consider. Whether the father is a citizen, the mother is a citizen, either or both parents have multiple citizenships, and where the child is born. The only combination that is without question is born on us soil of citizen parents.
Congress and the courts have spoken on all the other combinations. The fact that they have written laws about it shows that they think they have jurisdiction. They have amended the Constitution by editing the dictionary.
by your reasoning, any citizenship you are born with makes you a natural born citizen of that country.
for myself, i would therefore be a NBC of the US and Britain.
for TCruz, he would be a NBC of the US, Cuba, Canada and possibly Britain.
if you logic held, then a person could be a natural born citizen from multiple countries... which flies in the face of reason when you consider the Founders chose the phrase to insure against split allegiances, at least by birth.
it would also contradict the definition of a natural born citizen as described in 1758 in the ‘Law of Nations’, a text well known to the Founders.
sorry, it’s just not feasible