You keep saying this, but that has not been held by the Supreme Court. You have been shown this by multiple people on other threads.
Citizen does not equal natural born citizen, when you depend on a statute passed by Congress to give you citizenship.
“You keep saying this, but that has not been held by the Supreme Court.”
You may claim to have the right to own a gun even though you may not be part of an organized militia. But the Supreme Court has not ruled on your particular case, so maybe you should wait and see before you purchase any.
“You have been shown this by multiple people on other threads.”
I have heard endless legal theories requiring huge leaps of logic and mental backflips. No one has “shown” me anything of the sort.
“Citizen does not equal natural born citizen, when you depend on a statute passed by Congress to give you citizenship.”
Certainly Congress does specify applicable laws to become a naturalized citizen, but that does not apply to Cruz because he was a citizen at birth.
No one has shown any relevant evidence to disprove the simple explanation that a natural born citizen is a citizen at birth, and a naturalized citizen is someone who becomes a citizen later. The Constitution only recognizes two types of citizens: born and naturalized. If there IS some evidence contrariwise, I am openminded enough to listen and reconsider. But no one has shown something that should be easy to produce if what I am saying is untrue.
Cruz is a citizen by birth based on the naturalization act of 1952 which was in force at the time.
The first naturalization act in 1790 explicitly describes a case in which, at the time that act was in force, children born outside of the US were regarded in the eyes of the law as natural born citizens. It is also clear from the context that this means they did not need to naturalize. No other categories of citizens are specified in the founding documents or early laws.
The founders understood that citizenship could be conferred at birth either due to where the birth took place or the citizenship of the parents. However, it has always been within the purview of Congress, to determine how and when this applies. Otherwise you find yourself taking the highly suspect position that the founders who wrote the first naturalization act did not know the Constitution and drafted the first such law unconstitutionally.
So, do you actually believe that children born to US citizens traveling abroad between 1790 and 1795 (when the first naturalization act was in force) were not natural born citizens? Do you believe Congress enacted an unconstitutional law 18 months after ratifying the Constitution?