Citizenship and “natural born” citizenship are not equivalents, but I’ve learned that this point is not worth contending.
Being born on territory of the U.S.A. is a requirement of eligibility to hold the office of President, irrespective of the nationality of one’s mother. My wife, born in the U.S.A., could legally run for and hold the office of President, although her mother never terminated her Norwegian citizenship or tried to become a U.S. citizen.
The prospective candidate’s natural born citizenship is the point; not the citizenship of his/her mother.
That being seemingly terminally incomprehensible to some, I give up.
The Constitution uses the term “NBC.” Of course, the Constitution does not define the term.
Any person who was a citizen at birth is an NBC. There is nothing in the Constitution, and nothing in any statute, that specifies that this citizenship-at-birth must come about by PLACE of birth and NOT by parental citizenship.
If Congress passes a statue (which they should) eliminating PLACE of birth (i.e., on U.S. soil) as a cause of citizenship, then all NBC’s would be such only on account of parental citizenship.
What? So, if my American parents happened to be visiting Canada when I was born, I'm suddenly ineligible? Even though I was an American citizen at birth?
That makes no sense. Natural born does not mean "born on US territory"; it means "American citizen at birth". Someone who is an American citizen at birth is not "naturalized". Therefore they are, by definition, Natural Born.
The issues surrounding 0bama's citizenship center around his mother's age, and thus her US citizenship status, at the time of 0bama's birth.
The birth of Ted Cruz to an unquestionably American mother (while she was in Canada) is a much different situation.
Ted Cruz is an NBC, and not a single Court in this nation is going to rule otherwise. Not one.