Sorry, FRiend. That is totally false. The United States Code that you quote is statutory law.
Cruz is a statutory natural-born citizen, meaning that his citizenship was granted at birth by federal statutue through the principle of jus sanguinis (via bloodline) as opposed to being granted at birth by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution through the principle of jus soli (via place of birth).
The Foreign Affairs manual states:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for PresidencyThe U.S. government absolutely does recognize the concept of statutory citizenship.
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
(...)
d. (snip) In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
All that really says is that natural born citizen has not been defined by a court. That's reasonable, actually. The Constitution gave Congress, not the courts, the power to define it when it gave Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and to make all laws necessary to implement their rules.
Congress decided that some had to be naturalized and that others didn't. If you don't have to be naturalized then you are a citizen at birth, as the FAM says the overseas children are.
“The United States Code that you quote is statutory law. “
You obviously do not understand law. You quote a manual as a legal statement. “But judge! There is a manual! Some clerk took time to write it so it is LAW dammit!{temper tantrum, feet stomping ensues}”
I have to admit, that is the most cogent argument for the Cruz eligibility question I have yet to hear.
Thank you for clearing the fog.