In American law and in the common law, citizenship is determined by soil before blood and that's the dirty little secret that nobody wants to talk about.
The statute of 5 Edw. III recites the existence of doubts as to the right of foreign-born children to inherit in England; and, while it is declaratory of the rights of children of the King, and is retrospective as to the persons specifically named, yet, as to all others, it is, in terms, merely prospective, applying to those only "who shall be born henceforth." Mr. Binney, in his paper above cited, after a critical examination of the statute and of the early English cases, concluded:
There is nothing in the statute which would justify the conclusion that it is declaratory of the common law in any but a single particular, namely in regard to the children of the King; nor has it at any time been judicially held to be so. . . . The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.
Binney on Alienigenae, 14, 20; 2 Amer.Law Reg.199, 203. And the great weight of the English authorities, before and since he wrote, appears to support his conclusion. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 17a, 18a; Co.Lit. 8a, and Hargrave's note 36; 1 Bl.Com. 33; Barrington on Statutes, (5th ed.) 268; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; I: ord Chancellor Cranworth, in Shedden v. Patrick, 1 Macq. 535, 611; Cockburn on Nationality, 7, 9; De Greer v. Stone, 2 Ch.D. 243, 252; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 17, 741. "The acquisition," says Mr. Dicey, (p. 741) "of nationality by descent is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments."
You may be right, but there's a big problem with that. Let's look at two people with the following characteristics:
Person A: Born in the U.S. to an American mother and a foreign father who were not married. Moves to a foreign country in Asia as a child without his mother and is raised as a Muslim by a stepfather. Comes back to the U.S. and changes his name multiple times. Makes his way onto the U.S. political scene with all kinds of unfilled gaps in his background.
Person B: Born in Canada to two married parents who are both U.S. citizens, while his father is on a temporary work assignment north of the border. Spent almost his entire life in the U.S., and can account for just about every day he's lived on this earth.
For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that Barack Hussein Obama was actually born in Hawaii. Based on the case you've presented, he would be eligible to serve as the President of the United States but this hypothetical "Person B" would not.
This is where legalities clash with reality.
Also ...
Using this logic, then some guy from Uganda who happened to be born in the U.S. 45 years ago while his parents were here on a six-month work assignment would be eligible to be President, but Ted Cruz would not.
The basic premise here about "soil over blood" doesn't make any sense at all.
Oh, it's being talked about. Katyal, Clement, the popular "legal celebrity" press, Amar, Balkin, Napolitano ... etc. all talk about it.
And all assert, many with great certainty, that Cruz is NBC.
The public is being deliberately misled. It's the constitutional version of global warming.