I’m busy and don’t have time to reply at length with quotes. However, you should stop using the wrong statute in support of your arguments as a starting point. I’ve already quoted the correct statute numerous times for all of you from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Although you folks keep denying it, the naturalization law naturalizes citizens and cannot possibly make a person eligible for natural born citizenship by changing the law to make the mother the source of the U.S. citizenship. That is something that can only be accomplished when making a person eligible for naturalized citizenship.
When I get some more time later, I’ll also show you how Ted Cruz may not even be a lawful U.S. citizen of any kind. It appears he may have acquired his U.S. passport by fraudulent representations. More on that topic later.
There can only be A< single "right one" if sound legal basis can established for setting aside portions of the code which do speak simply, directly and explicitly.
Although there may be some way that what I've been arguing not be sufficient to reach the now absent from within the codifications of laws pertaining to citizenship and naturalization, the phrase "natural born citizen" a mother can indeed be the source for a person being born a citizen.
Born a citizen, not some fantasy of being "naturalized at birth".
The "born a citizen only according to statute" line of argument fails.
I used to be persuaded by that and other extreme views, but long before Cruz came into national view I had examined arguments to that effect (including the claim there was significant difference between being born a citizen and being "natural born citizen") and had finally come to the place of rejecting that extreme "birthism" argument.
One is either born a citizen, or else to become a citizen must undergo naturalization some time after one is born, much as the legal definition of just what it means to be "naturalized" explicitly states.
You say the code (codes, I cited a pair of passages from U.S.C. 8) which I cited are "the wrong" ones.
Whatever else you may have, may well somehow apply, yet to rightfully apply (as you think it must?) and to set aside what I just cited AT THE SAME TIME is going to be a neat trick.
Every attempt I've seen so far has fell short of doing that, though not for lack of people trying their damnedest to force everybody to sorta-kinda- read in-between the lines, or to read from dissenting inapplicable dicta in only the ways they want people to.