Even with that law which was repealed and rewritten in 1795 by "the father of the constitution" James Madison so as to replace shall be considered natural born citizen with shall be considered a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 even been considered a citizen of the USA. In 1790 citizenship was derived by the husband/father. If an American woman married a Cuban she became a citizen of Cuba. The child of a Cuban father was a Cuban citizen. 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.
Don’t get sidetracked by the title of the bill. The point is the bill itself made a distinction between “naturalized” and “natural born” citizens.
The issue is the term “natural born citizen” (Art II, Sec 1, Cl 5) as it was originally understood and intended at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.
The 1795 bill never used the term “natural born citizen”, so it is limited in its usefulness in the original understanding of the term. The 1795 bill addressed only alien naturalization and children born in the U.S. to a naturalized citizen. It did not address the specific issue of birth outside the U.S.
So although the 1795 Bill replaced the 1790 Bill, the 1790 bill is still useful in gaining insight into the original understanding of the term “natural born citizen.”