John McCoy wrote in
:

Doug Miller wrote in
:

John McCoy wrote in
:

Doug Miller wrote in
:

The only relevant thing is what the actual
law is: children born abroad, with at least one parent a U.S.
citizen, are themselves U.S. citizens *by birth*, i.e.
"natural-born".

The law doesn't say that. What the law says is children born
as you describe are "native citizens". The law doesn't anywhere
define what a "natural born" citizen is.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...f-natural-born
-citizen/

Um, the only actual law referenced in that article is the
naturalization act of 1790,

That is incorrect. The article also referenced the British statutes which form the basis of
American common law in this respect, and (although without citing or quoting it) the later
Congressional act(s) which superseded it.

which has long since been
superceded.

Yes, by a law with an even more expansive definition of birthright citizenship.

*superseded

As far as I know, there is no current law
which defines "natural born citizen" (and I think if there
was, the current discussion about Cruz would not be
happening).

The relevant current law, as far as I can tell, is
8 USC 1401.

Note that I'm not asserting Cruz isn't a natural born
citizen. Just that the term is not explicitly defined
under current law.

(just as an aside, under the act of 1790 Cruz would definately
not be a natural born citizen, so it's good for him that it
no longer applies).

The article explicitly states the contrary; did you actually read it?

"Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz
would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790. "