U.S. Code doesn't say anything about natural born citizenship. The one time in our history in which U.S. Code, the 1790 Naturalization Act, was mentioned, Congress quickly realized its mistake and that act was rescinded in 1795, with the phrase "natural born citizen" replaced with "citizen". That mistake was never repeated.
There is lots of conjecture about how that mistake was made, a "naturalization Act" of Congress altering a definition based upon a distinctly different class in the Constitution, the class eligible to the presidency is logically decoupled from authority to create an Uniform Rule for Naturalization. Congress, were the construction acceptable, could reconstruct the Constitution, changing protections into rights, militia into military, taxes into loans as King William II, who had promised "no new taxes" pleaded, before losing his head (I may have misremembered the King, but recall the historical event.) But Congress never again made that mistake.
Natural born citizenship was defined as positive law in Minor v. Happersett in 1875. It became precedent, because Virginia Minor's status before the 14th Amendment was at issue, and the decision had no meaning if she were not a constitutional citizen. Natural born citizens were the only constitutionally defined citizens before the 14th Amendment's definition of who became citizens at birth. Citizens at birth were not equal to natural born citizens. The author of the 14th Amendment made that clear and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark confirmed that fact. Only a reversal of Minor v. Happersett can alter that definition, not to say that it can't be done.
You are sounding like the Obots of seven or eight years ago, who don't mind being wrong. They know that lies repeated often enough begin to be accepted by some as truth. So I expect to see you back again challenging, in case readers are influence by assertiveness that perhaps what you say is true. In the Obot days we had some who admitted to being paid by Anita Dunn's White House propaganda group, though there was no way to confirm the claim other than reading original sources.
In your case, quote a passage from U.S. Code 1401 that defines "natural born citizenship". Of course, there is none. But I'm still betting that you will try that ploy again because, like Ted Cruz, your objective has nothing to do with truth, except that you may have chosen some group to argue for. In Ted's case, either party could force the Supreme Court to remove Ted, were he to get that far. But the junior courts will sadly do whatever their political bosses tell them to do, no matter how embarrassing it may be to concoct legal, logical, and rhetorical nonsense to avoid having to take a position that might put a political outsider in a position to disrupt to payola.
U.S. naturalization code is based upon the 14th Amendment, "an Uniform Rule for Naturalizaton", from Article 1 Section 8. Article II Section 1 Clause V has never been amended, and has no connection with naturalization, just as no one can be "naturalized" a "natural" born citizen. The adjective "natural" comes from "Nature's Law" cited in the first paragraph of the Declaration. U.S. Code is not Natural Law, it is man's law, created by Congressmen.
In Perkins v. Elg, little Marie Elg was born in NY to naturalized Swedish parents. Dad got offered a job back "home" (think about why we require natural born citizen for Comm. in Chief), and left baby and Mom, calling them to return after a year or two. Marie was raised in Sweden, but decided to return "home" at majority. The AG said she needed to naturalize. The Supreme Court said Marie was born to citizen parents on U.S. soil, a natural born citizen, a condition granted by God that could not be denied by men (Congress). "Marie, should she so decide, after suitable residence and attaining the age of 35, is eligible to the presidency if she wishes (paraphrase).
The claims of Obots, and now Cruzbots, have no authority when all nine justices deciding Minor v. Happersett confirmed the only definition, quoted in dozens of cases, for which Chief Justice Marshall recommended Vattel's compendium of Nature's Law and The Law of Nations as the most concise. There are many more obscure sources, which, if you try to read them, help to explain why Vattel was the reference for Natural Law preferred by Hamilton, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Munroe, Marshall, Waite, Gray, and on and on. We are all being played, often by presumed authorities who themselves have never taken the time to read Thomas Paine, let alone Montesque, or Pufendorf, or Locke. As James Carville once advised, "Follow the money!"
All meaningless legal hogwash. Please show any case where any court of final jurisdiction ever held that George Romney, John McCain or Ted Cruz were ineligible to be president due to their citizenship status..
Of course, there are none. Only fools pursue fools’ erands.
Attack Crus all you want on his shortcommings, but the NBC issue makes its proponents look boorish