Cruz has allegiance from birth from being an American citizen at birth.
And yes, I understand the colonial concerns, and since those concerns would always be there in some form, there is a provision on it in the Constitution. But it was intentionally left vague. That might seem odd since President was the highest office of the new land, with the highest qualifications, but obviously those writing the Constitution didn’t feel like they could draw any further distinctions for close cases given all the many possible scenarios someone’s life might have, even then. If they were more specific, they could easily disqualify many patriotic people while not at all disqualifying many others who weren’t patriotic.
The term was hardly vague! It was well understood by their study of natural law, in fact to them it was self-evident. Modern sophists would have you believe otherwise, but the logic for the requirement is unassailable. You haven’t seemed to much studied the era, so perhaps you may have nothing but your more modern view.
They knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it. They had to defend what they wrote, through 13 state conventions and every clause was scrutinized. The item of the requirement of natural born was not controversial because its meaning was clear and everyone knew what it meant.
You really think after all they went through they would admit to having a foreign born president?
Unchecked delusion is possible in a body politic, but it never ends well.
Respectfully, ...