Katyal and Clenet compartmentalize citizenship on a "naturalized" (meaning some sort of proceeding) and "not naturalized," with every citizen in the "didn't go through a naturalization proceeding" in the natural born citizen category.
Another way to compartmentalize the issue is "statutory" vs. "citizen without resort to statute," with those who are citizens without resort to a statute being "natural born citizens." The logic there is that if citizenship depends on a statute, the only statutory power Congress has vis a vis citizenship is the power of naturalization. Courts adopt this version of compartmentalizing, finding that a person whose citizenship depends on a statute are naturalized, whether the statute attaches citizenship at birth without a naturalization proceeding, or attaches after birth via a naturalization proceeding.
The outcome of the analysis depends on which method of compartmentalizing one chooses.
If Cruz had been born before 1934, under the same circumstances (born in Canada to a US citizen mother who had resided in the US, and an alien father), he could not be a US citizen at all. His citizenship depends on the statute.
The prevailing view is that Congress has the power to redefine NBC without amending the constitution. It does so by passing an act that confers citizenship without requiring a naturalization proceeding, where that citizenship attaches at birth.
This is another interesting analysis.
I WANT Cruz to be eligible; but, as Trump says, it is unresolved at this time.
It is not Mark Levin’s finest hour to cry like a little Democrat baby about this. But . . . I think Levin also defended Obama on the “Birther” question, though it was the FACTS that are in question there, not the LAW (as in case of Cruz). No one is questioning Cruz’s honesty.