The naturalization acts contain several sections. One applies when both parents are citizens and the child is born in wedlock; another applies when one citizen parent (either father or mother) is involved in a birth in wedlock; and yet another pertains when the child is born out of wedlock, to one citizen parent. The conditions for conferring citizenship are different in each section of law.
For Cruz, being born of one citizen parent, in wedlock, the law doesn't distinguish between the citizen parent being the mother or father, and the details of the non-citizen parent aren't relevant under that section of law.
Since Title 8 is not positive law, therefore, we must look to the statutes at large that Title 8 refers to, which specific statute at large contains that language prior to, or after, the adoption of the 14th Amendment?
OOPS, correction... Since Title 8 is not positive law, therefore, we must look to the statutes at large that Title 8 refers to, which specific statute at large contains that language, prior to or after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, that states, when a child is born in wedlock, it is the nationality of the mother that governs, because even the 1965 acts specifically says “his” not “hers” when referring to husband/wife & children?
Nor do those laws say anything about him being natural born. They merely proclaim him to be a citizen.
My statement wasn't about what 'government sez', it was about natural law.
The fact some people seem to think that the sovereignty of one country can supplant the sovereignty of another is frightening in and of itself.
Not to mention the supposed ability of a country to maintain someone as a citizen whether they desire it or not. We've already a Revolution over that one.