[Dr. Sivana]

A natural born citizen does not need legislation to make them a citizen, they just are.

Since nations like the U.S. are a political creation, membership can also be determined by law. This is definitely the case at the time of the Constitutions enactment.

From the Naturalization Act of 1790:
"the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States"

Now, that law has been long superceded, but it was never found to be unconstitutional, and it uses the actual words "natural born Citizens". So yes, the definition of Natural Born Citizen in this country has always been subject to positive law. That is why free blacks in the U.S. were not legally citizens.

[jpsb]

Even with that law which was rewritten in 1795 by "the father of the constitution" James Madison so as to replace shall be considered natural born citizen with shall be considered a citizen, Cruz still would not have been considered a citizen of the USA. In 1790 citizenship was derived by the husband/father. If an American woman married a Cuban she was considered a citizen of Cuba. The child of a Cuban father was considered a Cuban. It was the Naturalization Act of 1934 which granted women the ability to pass her citizenship to her child. So if we go with original intent, your argument does not work.

If a Naturalization Act makes you a citizen, you are by definition, a naturalized citizen. Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen.