My point is that there isn’t a third type, and he certainly isn’t the second type, so he must be the first type.
What makes you think he isn't the second type? Let me show you a piece of the US Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....Article I, Section 8, Clause 4
"Naturalization" is the process of making something "like natural." It is not the same thing as being "natural."
Ted Cruz owes his citizenship to the fact that Congress passed a law in 1934 which "naturalized" at birth, all who were born to at least one American Parent. (provided the parent met the criteria in the law, and provided the naturalized child also adhered to the requirements of the law. Aldo Mario Bellei in "Rogers v Bellei, did not, and thus lost his conditional citizenship. )
"Natural citizens" do not need Congress to pass a law for them. They are "natural" citizens.
I’m not “fully convinced”, and this isn’t about “belief” it’s about reason. I’m open to a reasonable refutation of my point, as well as new facts or analysis.
Fair enough. If the meaning of "natural born citizen" was understood in 1787 by all the founders, then it certainly couldn't have been based on a 1934 law.
Good points. I suspect that a court would rule that “naturalization” is a process that occurs for a non-citizen to become a citizen, and that one who is a citizen by birth is more like natural-born than like naturalized.