Yes reading is the key to comprehension. The text reads:
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization†(March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
Note the use of the words “free white person”. That does not mean father only. Further on, it reads “the children of such person so naturalized” ... again, not based on father only. In fact, when it comes to the relevant section about being born beyond the see, the words are “And the children of citizens” ... again, not based on the father only.
In fact, the ONLY time the father is mentioned is as a restriction on those who’s fathers never resided in the United States. Of course, we know that Sen Cruz’s father DID reside in the United States prior to traveling to Canada.
So like you said ... reading is the key to comprehension.
Do you not comprehend that the very use of the word “naturalization” means that an action other than birth is required? Natural born citizens have no need for that at all.
And you are still wrong. Derivative citizenship through a mother was not granted until 1934. Until then, citizenship was granted through the father, including NBC. However you slice it, Cruz was not an NBC then and probably isnt now. Everyone loves to quote the 1790 Act but nobody understands the context of it.