Is Ted Cruz constitutionally eligible to be President?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While the answer is obviously yes, he isn't by the standards of many birthers, thus creating a bit of a conundrum.

No he's born in Canada

He was born in Canada to an American citizen mother, which makes him a natural-born US citizen. If Obama had been born in Kenya, he would also still be eligible for the same reason.

Not true.  The American-citizen parent must have lived in the United States for at least 5 years after the age of 14.  Obama's mother had not qualified to transmit citizenship to her children.

Source please.

8 USC 1401(g).  At the time Obama was born, for a child born abroad with one alien parent and one citizen parent to be a citizen, the citizen parent had to have resided 10 years in the US with at least 5 years after the age of 14. In 1986, the law was amended to make those limits 5 and 2 respectively, but even assuming that change would have granted him citizenship it wouldn't made him a natural-born citizen as he wouldn't have been a citizen from birth.  Since his mother was only 18 when Obama was born, it would have been impossible for her to meet the 5 year requirement had she given birth abroad.

So the birthers weren't entirely insane, only mostly insane because even after proof he'd be been born in Hawaii was submitted, they refused to believe it and continued to insist he'd been born in Kenya, which if true would have debarred Barack from the presidency.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What would have been the rationale behind that? Punishment to people having children too young? Like, what's the policy rationale?

The rationale is to keep from having people who have a weak connection to the US from having citizenship.  Under 8 USC 1431, a child born abroad with one citizen parent who comes to the US in the custody of that parent before the child is 18 automatically gets citizenship at that point. Other than being debarred from the presidency, if Barack's lifestory had been the same as it had been except for being born in Kenya instead of Hawaii, there would have been no effect.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While the answer is obviously yes, he isn't by the standards of many birthers, thus creating a bit of a conundrum.

No he's born in Canada

He was born in Canada to an American citizen mother, which makes him a natural-born US citizen. If Obama had been born in Kenya, he would also still be eligible for the same reason.

Not true.  The American-citizen parent must have lived in the United States for at least 5 years after the age of 14.  Obama's mother had not qualified to transmit citizenship to her children.

Hence Obama is NOT QUALIFIED.

Last time I checked, Hawaii is part of the United States. Even Trump finally admitted the truth.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The rationale is that the law was written before the days of casual tourism. In any case, under 8 USC 1431(a), said kid would be a citizen upon returning stateside, and possibly sooner depending upon whether the citizen parent has a permanent US residence. Depending on how that section is interpreted, the kid might also qualify as a natural born citizen.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No. Both he and John McCain are ineligible, while Obama is eligible.

Since both of McCain's parents were citizens, you'd have to use a definition of natural born citizen different from that of the Naturalization Act of 1790 to find that he was ineligible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No. Both he and John McCain are ineligible, while Obama is eligible.

Since both of McCain's parents were citizens, you'd have to use a definition of natural born citizen different from that of the Naturalization Act of 1790 to find that he was ineligible.

Yes. Naturalization Act cannot define the term "natural born citizen". Only the Supreme Court can. Or a constitutional amendment.

My definition is anybody born on the territory of the USA.

The idea that anyone called upon to decide what the term means won't consider the definition given by the same group of people who made that a qualification is ludicrous. They likely wouldn't use the exact 1790 definition since it has some gender based distinctions that aren't in keeping with current laws for determining citizenship. But in any case, it's clear that the term is not limited to jus soli. The clear intent of the term as demonstrated by the 1790 act is that it includes anyone who is a citizen of the U.S. from the moment of their birth.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

They weren't trying to make a 51 volume behemoth of a legal code back then. If they thought something was clear, they saw no need to enshrine the obvious into law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

However, US citizens born outside of the United States are automatically citizens of that country in which they were born (natural born citizens of that foreign country). Hence, they have another country, whose interests they may pursue when in power and these are precisely the US citizens that the USA, by virtue of the “natural born citizen” clause, should be protected from.

Wrong.  While most countries in the Americas use jus soli as their basic method of citizenship, most countries in the rest of the world use some form of jus sanguinis, where citizenship is not tied to the place of birth but to the citizenship status of their parents, as the basic form of citizenship. Of course, taken as a whole most countries use a combination of the two.

It wasn't until the 14th Amendment that jus soli was established as the minimum standard of who is a natural born citizen in the US, but Congress still has authority under its Article I Section 8 powers to define who else is a citizen from birth and thus a natural born citizen.  Obama, McCain, and Cruz were all citizens at birth. Cruz is the only one of the three whose status would be in doubt under the Naturalization Act of 1790, depending on how one interprets the changes in how marriage affects citizenship that have happened in both international and US law since 1790 affect the application of that law to persons born outside the US.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So you think John McCain is loyal to...Panama?

McCain was born in the US Canal Zone, anyway, which was a US Territory... or something like that.

Yes, the Canal Zone was US Territory at the time, and everyone born there was automatically a natural born citizen as if they had been born nearly anywhere else in the US.

Actually, it wasn't the case that being born in the Canal Zone granted one citizenship.  Persons born in unincorporated territories are not covered by the 14th amendment definition of citizenship.  They might be covered by Congress' Article I Section 8 powers, as in the case today in all unincorporated territories except American Samoa, but that was never extended to the Canal Zone.  McCain is a natural born citizen because at least one of his parents was a US citizen.  Had his parents been Panamanians working in the Canal Zone, he would not have obtained US citizenship from birth. The difference for those born in the Canal Zone from other children born abroad to US parents, is that that there was no requirement that their parents have resided in the US proper for any period of time for them to transmit their citizenship to their kids. (McCain was also covered under some other provisions concerning children born abroad to those serving in the US military.)