That may be so, about law, but this is the Constitution, not statutes. The case must get to the federal court of appeals. SCOTUS, depending on the ruling, will either pick it up or leave it. In this case I doubt it will get to the appellate court, and if it does they will pull out the "no standing" ruling..
While interesting, the natural born understanding was never decided or written about by the people that wrote it or voted for it.
The understanding reverts to pre constitutional law which states essentially that natural born status is not a place, but a status that is transferrable from parent to child no matter the place of birth (or what is separately called birthright)
Originally it required only the father to transfer his status to the son. Women were thought to have no legal status where they could give or accept a contract. This was the understanding...a short time later the Congress felt it necessary to put this in writing which they did in 1790. But in 1795 it was pointed out that Congress could not define natural born and could only deal with naturalization so in 1795 they took the natural born language out of the statute.
That leaves us with interpretations to be made, and that interpretation is based on the pre constitutional definition but it has been changed a bit by later amendments to the constitution that we sometimes call equal protection clauses that post date the original definition and add legal status to women as it was applied to men.
Therefore.......the 20th century interpretation is that Ted Cruz's mother, who was natural born, transferred that same status to he child at birth. The birth in Canada, nor the duel citizenship status, all being statutory, were superseded by the natural born constitutional applied status.
Thus Ted did not require naturalization, not was he ever a alien or asked for it. He was at birth a natural born US citizen.
The foreign-born children of citizens have always required naturalization.