It's ironic that this chore should be easy. It's been made difficult due to the presence of statutory citizenship that grants citizenship at birth, the passage of time, etc.
But imagine if you will, there aren't any citizenship laws other than natural law, what citizenship one would more or less "naturally" assign to a person.
I'm not saying that how the decision will be made by the deciders, just saying that's a better mind set than rhetorical gymnastics and relying on statutes.
“...what citizenship one would more or less “naturally” assign to a person.”
Well, I know a lesbian couple that have kids together. Egg from one gal, fertilized, then implanted into the other gal. A year later they did the same but vice versa. So the term “naturally” gets screwed up pretty quickly. (Which one is the “real” mother?) Although I guess in their case the citizenship might be clear - both moms are American, and the children were born here.
Although - the status of the father/donor is unknown. What if it was/is a foreign citizen father?
What about the muslim invaders? Mom and dad are illegal in the country, have a child born on U.S. soil, raised and indoctrinated in the mosque? (Well - pretty close with that scenario at the present moment.)
I like your point. I've never liked dual citizenship, basically you've just put words to why. A person's loyalty should be to one country. Cruz at birth, I'd think, was "naturally" a Canadian citizen, probably eligible to be a citizen of the US or Cuba instead. Under that definition, Obama's question is not just where he was born, but that mom was a minor.
This is definitely a case where inept establishment Republicans put off something, I guess because they wanted to save Obama, and now in a situation where the dems won't return the favor.