I recall second grade in Ramstein in 1964. My sister had just been born and they made a big deal in school teaching us that we were eligible to become President because being stationed there. It was one of few loopholes. Dad AND mom both had to be US citizens.
But it seems to focus simply on whether you were a citizen at naturalized, which was not the distinction that most of us remember.
The question never really came up before the last few years.
In Cruz' case, his father was at least an immigrant alien. He was on the path to citizenship, which Obama's father was not. And the ambivalence towards us shows the wisdom of worrying about who the parents were: We know he's loyal to Muslims and non-Colonial Kenya. In fact, he's got a chip on his shoulder about it.
We aren't suffering from false memory syndrome. It used to be that 2 parents (note the plural) and born in the country mean't NATURAL BORN. See here:Natural Born Citizen
Note that most of the other arguments worry about simple citizenship. The key point is that Natural Born Citizenship is a higher threshold and did not simply mean "not naturalized, but born a citizen".
It went further, and de Vattel's definition of it was the one that was presumed.
There are counter arguments. Unfortunately, at least in my case, I don't buy them. I think the Kenyan is argument enough. He has done so much damage to our Republic, it may be beyond repair.
Perhaps we can be a bit more discerning this time around. Unfortunately, the need to WIN get's in the way of that, and a brilliant, charismatic guy like Cruz is hard to walk away from. Perhaps he's an argument for a looser definition.
But we don't know, do we? And the evidence we currently have doesn't help.