There is NO question regarding acts of Parliament, THEY ARE IRRELEVANT! See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
"any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." got that? State reception clauses or statutes are the not supreme Law of the Land: only the Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, are the supreme Law of the Land.
There is no clause in the United States Constitution which incorporates acts of the Parliament of England/Great Britain into United States law.
There is no clause in the United States Constitution which incorporates the "common law" of England/Great Britain into United States law.
There is no clause in the United States Constitution which grants to the Federal Judiciary the authority to incorporate other systems of laws of its own choosing.
There is no Act of Congress which incorporates acts of the Parliament of England/Great Britain into United States law.
There is no Act of Congress which incorporates the “common law” of England/Great Britain into United States law.
Please stop reacting and think about the logical argument. If Parliament had authority to expand the meaning of natural born subject beyond the original meaning, to include those born to parents living outside the realm, and that authority was accepted as normal by the Founders...
THEN when they wrote “natural born citizen”, their understanding of what it meant would include that Congress (the functional equivalent of Parliament) could set the terms for who was considered a NBC.
I am NOT saying the Acts of Parliament govern our law. How those acts, however, affected the understood meaning of natural born subject WOULD influence what the Founders and Ratifiers MEANT when they used the phrase “natural born citizen”.
Since the most authoritative legal dictionary of the day said Parliament COULD expand the definition of NBS, then it is reasonable to assume that NBC could also be expanded in definition by Congress.
Please do not take partial sentences out of context. I have never said Parliament passes acts that bind the USA. But if the Founders believed Parliament could expand on the definition of NBS, then in the absence of any other evidence, it is reasonable to assume Congress can expand the definition of NBC beyond the one every legal analysis has for NBS - born within the borders, but not including those born to ambassadors, invading armies, or property (slaves) or embedded nations (Indians).
There has never been a formal ruling by the US Supreme Court on this. However, the decision on WKA in 1898 certainly supports it. If Cruz runs, there MAY be a US Supreme Court ruling. My guess, however, is that the courts would leave it with Congress, and Congress would say Ted Cruz was born a citizen and thus is a NBC. And since CONGRESS gets to decide if the Electoral votes count, THEY are the ones who will decide.