“Sorry, that is not the case. The situations with Obama and Cruz have different facts. There is no inconsistency in the standard that is being applied.”
Wrong. You have your facts wrong, so your conclusion is wrong.
“A person is either a citizen by consequence of their birth or because he or she naturalized later.”
No, you are wrong. Senator Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen by the authority of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which he used to acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization at birth.
Barack Hussein Obama did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth and is probably not a U.S. citizen except by the fraudulent filing of a falsified birth record.
“The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate naturalization which by default gives it the power to define who doesn’t have to go through the naturalization process because the person is deemed a citizen by virtue of his or her birth. Based on the particular circumstances of their births, both Obama and Cruz didn’t have to go through a naturalization process because they had met the requirements of the time to qualify as U.S. citizens by virtue of their birth.”
No, you are wrong. Senator Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen by the authority of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which he used to acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization at birth.
Barack Hussein Obama did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth and is probably not a U.S. citizen except by the fraudulent filing of a falsified birth record.
“That was the issue during the hub-bub over Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate. If he had been born outside of the U. S., he would have had to have been naturalized to become a U. S. citizen because his mother would not have been able to convey citizenship to him.”
Yes, that is correct.
“Cruz’ birth situation was different because his mom was old enough to convey her U. S. citizenship on him.”
Yes, Ted Cruz acquired U.S. citizenship because the U.S. immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 provided that the child of one U.S. parent and one alien parent could be naturalized at birth as a U.S. citizen when other requirements were met. Consequently, Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Arnold Scharzenegger is a naturalized U.S. citizen, and he is not eligible to be POTUS. Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen, and he too is not eligible to be POTUS.
“Absolute 100% hypocrisy”
When you deny Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen, who is also not a natural born citizen of the U.S. and thereby ineligible to be POTUS.
“No. It is absolute 100% misunderstanding by you of your opponents’ position.”
On the contrary....
In all my years on the FR, I don't know if I have had someone miss my point so badly. I was responding to Enlightened1's statement that the Cruz supporters were hypocritical in the Cruz and Obama situation. I laid out the argument for citizenship commonly expressed by the Cruz supporters (and to which I also agree as do most legal scholars) and showed how the theory was consistently applied to arrive at the conclusions that Enlightened1 asserted were hypocritical. Consistent application of that legal theory to the different factual situations led to different conclusions. Hypocrisy would entail different conclusions with essentially the same factual situation. You can disagree with the legal theory that was being applied but it is not logical to conclude that it was hypocritically applied.
What you claim are facts are actually conclusions reached by using a different legal theory.