Not much credibility to this piece by completely ignoring the fact that even if you considered “offspring” born abroad to be natural born, it was through the father, and Cruz’s father was unquestionably not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Even if you wanted to update it to delete the sexism of that, you would have to expand it to both parents, because having it be either/or mother/father would open up the possibility of a natural born citizen having divided loyalties, which is exactly the thing they sought to prevent with this provision.
False. This canard was discussed - and dismissed as it should be.
"...the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..."
Assuming that modern Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence would not permit any constitutional distinction of children based upon fathers versus mothers who are U.S. citizens (Cruz's mother was a U.S. citizen at his birth; his father was not) - and there is no legal reason, today, to think that a mother who is a U.S. citizen owes less "allegiance" to the U.S. than would the father - the law existing at the time of the U.S. founding suggests that, in interpreting Article II's phrase "natural born citizen," children born abroad to U.S. citizens should be considered "natural born."
Actually reading a post before commenting on it is always to be recommended highly.