I spent a great deal of time on this issue but have more or less withdrawn from it because of all the emotion, irrationality and deliberate obfuscation going on. Plus, so many just cannot grasp key distinctions.
There is no doubt that a child born abroad to two US citizens is himself or herself a US citizen also. This is the law of our land. So, that thought is incorrect, whoever is making such a suggestion.
It can be said that original intent was for such individuals born abroad to be regarded as natural born citizens also, as an Act was passed in 1790 stating as much, with many of those involved in writing, sponsoring and passing that Act being Founders of this nation. The Constitution had just been ratified the year before, after all.
That Act was modified and replaced in 1795, however. The language was identical save the deletion of the critical words "natural born." There is a curious lack of historical documentation to detail the reasoning and purpose of having done this, but the result has been that citizens born abroad, not in service to the State, have been legally held to be citizens since then, but that is not to say that such citizens are regarded as natural born citizens.
Why? What did or does this mean? The term only has legal import for those who aspire to be elected to the Executive branch of Federal government. It's a status acquired due to circumstance and parentage at birth that confers eligibility to be elected President, and in turn Vice President, since the VP of necessity must be capable of assuming that Office.
So, we see that intent was one thing but practical reality dictated another in very short order, as far as circumstance of birth and any consideration of such a birth being regarded as natural born for purposes of eligibility to hold elected office in the Executive branch of the Federal government.
Again, we return to why? What does it mean? In order to begin to find an answer, one must turn to the many court cases dealing with the matter. There aren't any US Supreme Court cases dealing explicitly with the issue of Presidential eligibility, it's just never been put before the court and in fact has not even been pursued legally before now. There are a good five or six that speak to the meaning of natural born citizen though, and so it's to those cases that we must turn to gain a good understanding.
First and foremost among these would be Minor v. Happersett. The case dealt with women's suffrage, with Virginia Minor suing for the right to vote. Virginia Minor was considered to be a natural born citizen, according to the definition provided by USSC Chief Justice Waite. He elaborated that there is never doubt regarding such with an individual born in the country to parents who are citizens. Never any doubt. Doubt is a key word, here, because he himself goes further to say that "some authorities go further" in including individuals born in the country regardless of parental citizenship. Of these there are doubts, but never as to the first, he says, meaning those born in the country to two citizen parents.
This is just touching the surface, but it's sufficient background to begin to form a framework around the meaning of the term. Circumstance of birth, while perhaps not initially intended to disqualify an individual from election to the Executive Office, clearly became a concern very early on, to the point of rescinding, modifying and replacing the very first Act pertaining to citizenship. Something about being born abroad was deemed a problem for a President and Commander-in-Chief of the US military. What might that be? Remember, we're talking about legal distinctions, here.
Then we have the domestic USSC cases with Minor being the prime example. The doubt there centered around a parent or parents who were not themselves citizens, which is to say that they were subject to a different jurisdiction, a different set of laws, some other recognized sovereign entity, a foreign government.
Taken together, these indicate that the natural born status is affected by the legal presence of a foreign sovereignty. What does that have to do with the birth of a child? Well, legally, everything. We claim births within our country as citizens. We make a legal claim of authority upon that child. Other nations do as well. They make a legal claim of authority upon a child born within their jurisdiction, the territory covered by their governance and their laws.
Why is this a problem, why is there doubt regarding some that apparently required resolution in several instances, two of which are listed above?
They both exhibit concern over individuals legally beholden to a foreign government. Laws regarding citizenship at birth vary from country to country. Some claim everyone born to their citizens as citizens also, regardless of which country in which a child might be born. We do, so do most others. Citizenship is a legal claim of authority by a sovereign government. Such authority exerts legally recognized, enforceable control over an individual.
Some claim all born within the area of their legal control, their jurisdiction, their sovereignty, as citizens. We do. Others do, too. It's a claim of authority and an ability to control that is legally recognized, internationally.
Some nations go yet further still, exerting multigenerational claims of authority over descendants of citizens, or even a specific type of person. Ireland and Israel spring to mind, but they're not the only ones.
All these competing claims of legal authority and control create uncertainty and... doubt. There's that word again. I've concluded that the unresolved doubts to which Chief Justice Waite referred pertain to just how birth circumstance and/or parentage would affect a given individual, were he or she to pursue election to the Presidency. The Presidency is the only place where being natural born or not matters one iota under the law.
The clear trend over time, as far as an answer for those who fall into this area of doubt, has been to say "it depends," that there are potential complicating factors. Those potential complicating factors are introduced by any claims of a foreign government as well as the nature of those claims.
Legally, an individual beholden in any internationally recognized way to a foreign country, was precluded from the Presidency. That is what it means. Sometimes, there is no claim upon a foreign birth, sometimes there is.
Doubt.
Well, in the case of Cruz, His parents were clearly American (Texas) citizens working Calgary oil fields in the service of US Commerce and the American dream. In the case of Barry Obama, his Piss Poor excuse of a Pappy was clearly a Kenyan working the US education system for himself. Obama Sr had no allegiance to the USA. That is the crux of Barry's ineligibility.
Crux’s Father Became a citizen and enthusiastically said “is this a great country, or what?!!”
Obama’s Father never took citizenship, took advantage of our generosity, got drunk and waved his dick around while talking **** about America.