“Well it may also be the case that there are some very patriotic people who for whatever maybe even military service or diplomatic service haven’t spent 14 years resident in the states, would then propose dropping that requirement as well?”
There is a technical legal argument, and there is a functional argument. You sounded like you were making a comment on the functional argument - the application of the reason for the Constitutional requirement - and I was looking for elaboration.
Well my main point was that you can look to the intent of a constitutional provision in order to determine its meaning and the intent of the nbc clause is rather clear, the Founders were concerned about a President with presumably secret divided loyalties owing to their divided allegiances, and as such the rule would then be that anyone born with divided allegiances is ineligible. And Cruz undoubtedly was born with divided allegiances. Having found the rule you can’t then go back and start analyzing whether it’s a particular person really does have divided allegiances, you have to just apply the rule. But for the record, I don’t actually trust Cruz on these questions. The things he’s done that veer from what the conservative base wants have been few but they’ve been things like favoring a huge expansion of foreign workers, giving fast track trade authority to the President, favoring legalization of illegal aliens, allowing the President to go forward on the Iran Deal without treaty authority. Add on top of that the fact that his wife, who’s an active participant in his political career, is a partner at the ultimate Wall Street globalist firm, Goldman Sachs, and in my mind you have a candidate who does in fact show signs of divided loyalties of the sort that the Founders might’ve been thinking about.