[DiogenesLamp]

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA (Immigration & Naturalization Act) provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

And was this law in effect in 1787? Would the people for whom this law operates have been considered "natural citizens" prior to this law? How about a little honesty?

[Nero Germanicus]

That’s the current law of the land. I thought that posting it would be helpful for this discussion. I honestly posted the relevant section in its entirety, as it is likely to be applied in any court challenge to Senator Cruz.

The Founding Fathers made provision for any and all of their original thinking to be altered by Constitutional Amendment. They never intended for what they developed to be set in stone forever. They were smart enough to make it difficult to amend the Constitution but not impossible. The current Immigration and Naturalization Act has been held to be Constitutional under the provisions of the Citizenship Clause of the14th Amendment.

It is indeed ironic that in 2016, should Ted Cruz run for president, the first shot at determining his eligibility will belong to Secretary of State John Kerry.