Why are you so fixated on the Birther issue? You think the Supreme Court is God? Are you this fixated over Roe v. Wade? Or do you think the Supreme Court always gets it right?
To be honest, I'm not sure. I think it strikes my interest for a variety of reasons. I think the constitution is nifty, I think it's worth understanding how it operates. It's an issue that many people resolve in a misleading framework (citizen-at-birth = NBC), and I think there is some value in teaching people how the issue is actually resolved as a matter of law. I like to teach, and I think it is unhealthy for a population to run under a false belief. I think the NBC clause is an important factor for preserving US nationality and US interests. I thing Due Process and RKBA are important too.
-- You think the Supreme Court is God? --
No. It is an outcome-oriented political body.
-- Are you this fixated over Roe v. Wade? --
Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Yes, I am.
-- Or do you think the Supreme Court always gets it right? --
No. It makes many mistakes. See "outcome-oriented" remark above.
But on the question of whether all persons born abroad are naturalized, that issue has no social ramification, because a citizen is a citizen. Naturalized is as much a citizen as a person born into citizenship, just later in their life. IOW, I don't see social engineering or any deviation in 200 years of case law on the subject.
Now, my question to you was on how SCOTUS labels the citizenship of persons made citizen-at-birth by operation of an Act of Congress. What does the case law say? And why do you believe that SCOTUS would not use the same analysis in the hypothetical case of Citizen v. Secretary of State of Texas, with Cruz being the subject of a finding?