That’s certainly one point of view.
Or, as my post contained 4 different sentences on at least two different topics, it could be 3 or 4 points of view. :)
The problem is that in modern parlance, naturalization has come to be understood not as the legislatively conferred citizenship but as a process of acquiring citizenship. Cruz, McCain and George Romney did not have to go through any process to acquire their citizenship; Congress conferred that citizenship automatically by statute. These are not the only examples, however, of automatic naturalization by statute without any process or request. For example, United States citizenship was statutory conferred on all Native Americans living within the United States by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, even though some tribes actually objected, then as now.Man, it's like this Constitutional law prof has been reading my posts here. :)
Thus, naturalization as a term seems to have two very different meanings: (1) legislatively conferred citizenship either automatically or pursuant to some process, and (2) the more recent understanding, the process for acquiring citizenship where Congress has prescribed such a process. The Constitution appears to adopt the former reading on the issue of presidential eligibility, however much modern language usage employs the latter. In his recent comments on whether he is a "natural born" citizen, Sen. Ted Cruz appears to confuse or obfuscate these two. U.S. News & World Report
BTW, what other "point of view" did you have in mind?