Check out the us state dept website. It provides the references.
Picking one case out of a thousand is amateur hour. If you ask a lawyer they’ll say the same thing. Current law as it stands doesn’t require your interpretation.
That's not a cite, and it has inferior power of law (as in "none") compared with SCOTUS decisions.
Loss of Citizenship and NationalityA U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization INA 301 (8 U.S.C. 1401), INA 310 (8 U.S.C. 1421) or a U.S. noncitizen national INA 308 (8 U.S.C. 1408), INA 101(29) (8 U.S.C. 1101(29)) will lose U.S. nationality ("expatriate") her or himself by committing a statutory act of expatriation as defined in INA 349 (8 U.S.C. 1481), or predecessor statute, but only if the act is performed (1) voluntarily and (2) with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.
Confusing things a bit, 8 USC 1401(a) recites, "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," so 8 USC 1401 includes people born in the US, not naturalized, and people born abroad.
The be supporting of your contention, that US State Department reference would say, "A U.S. citizen by birth INA 301 (8 U.S.C. 1401) or naturalization, INA 310 (8 U.S.C. 1421)"
You still haven't responded to my question about how you distinguish dual-citizen Prince Achmed from dual-citizen Cruz, in light of your assertion that a dual-citizen is not eligible for the presidency.
OK, then pick a contrary case. Every single case on citizenship at birth abroad says the same thing - naturalized. Find just ONE that says differently. I picked Rogers v. Bellei because the fact pattern is the same as Cruz, bu there are thousands of born abroad citizenship cases, and they all say the same thing.
-- Current law as it stands doesn't require your interpretation. --
That's a throwaway line. Current law as it stands doesn't require your interpretation either.