A lot of back and forth on the NBC issue, but as far as birth on foreign soil, that is still an open issue. The Act of 1795 replaced the 1790 Act. However, the portion about birth outside the U.S. was not contravened in the new law. Regardless of sentiments of certain members of Congress, the majority chose not to address birth outside the U.S. or contravene the allowance in the previous Act. Thus we were left with at least the possibility that one may be foreign born and an NBC.
At this point in time, either Congress should make a sweeping law about NBC or federal cases should be taken individually. Probably both as no law can cover every nuance and instance. The Obama and Cruz controversies should have been taken up in federal court, which , again , has the power to decide for the parties at hand, but not to create national law.
Both the 1790 and 1795 Acts are naturalization acts. They both naturalized the foreign born children of U.S. citizens.
The foreign born children of U.S. citizens are not citizens of any sort unless and until an Act makes them so. The 1790 Act conferred upon these non-citizens the legal status “natural born citizen”, the 1795 Act conferred upon these non-citizens the legal status “citizen”.
The foreign born begin with the status “alien”.
Sen. Cruz acquired U.S. citizenship via Pub.L. 82-414 § 301(a)(7); 66 Stat. 236. To retain citizenship he was required to fulfill the requirements of Pub.L. 82-414 § 301(b), 66 Stat. 236, if those requirements where not fulfilled then citizenship was revoked. (The retention requirements were later amended and then later eliminated. This does not negate the fact that citizenship is by Congressional grant.)
Read Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) in tandem with Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).
Bellei lost his citizenship because he failed to comply with a condition subsequent required by naturalization statute.
Cruz is naturalized.