In addition to the legal subtleties I'd like to take note of the intent of that constitutional requirement that only natural born citizens can be president. The obvious result of this provision is that no newcomer can become president. The president should be rooted in the United States.

This must be seen in the historical context of a young, volatile democracy which felt -- not without reason -- under threat of a hostile takeover, politically or culturally. The office of the president was apparently considered powerful enough that the office holder could change the country. Immigration influx was continuous and huge. The provision guaranteed that the office holder would come from the "long-established", if such a thing existed, families. Such a member of the establishment would be less likely to alter the character of the emerging nation.

I'm not sure whether this is an argument supporting Cruz' eligiblility. One one hand, the requirements for his mother regarding the time she must have spent in the U.S. in order to make Cruz a citizen by birth support the notion that she was rooted in the U.S. But because there are no such requirements for Cruz himself, one could argue that he was for the intents and purposes of the consitutional provision -- the president should be rooted in the U.S. -- only as good as any naturalized alien.

In addition to the legal subtleties I'd like to take note of the intent of the constitutional requirement that only natural born citizens can be president. The obvious result of this provision is that no newcomer can become president. The president should be rooted in the United States.

This must be seen in the historical context of a young, volatile democracy which felt — not without reason — under threat of a hostile takeover, politically or culturally. The office of the president was apparently considered powerful enough that the office holder could change the country. Immigration influx was continuous and huge. The provision guaranteed that the office holder would come from relatively "established" families. Such a member of the establishment would be less likely to alter the character of the emerging nation.

Edit: After WBT pointed out that there is the 14-year residency requirement for eligibility, I think being born abroad to an American citizen actually proves closer ties to the U.S., if anything. Therefore, the intent of the provision actually supports Cruz' eligibility.

The argument is exactly that: In order to be citizen by birth abroad, one parent must be a citizen already, with a substantial period of residency within the U.S. No such requirement exists for the parents of citizens by virtue of being born on U.S soil — their parents may have immigrated the day before.

Both citizens born abroad or inside the U.S. may then spend most of their life, except for the 14 years of required residency, outside the U.S., so that the only difference is actually concerning their parents: For parents of citizens born abroad the constitution requires substantially stronger ties to their home country. By association, the children, too, of these parents have stronger constitutional "minimal ties" to the United States, matching the intent of the provision even better.

In addition to the legal subtleties I'd like to take note of the intent of that consitutional requirement that only natural born citizens can be president. The obvious result of this provision is that no newcomer can become president. The president should be rooted in the United States.

This must be seen in the historical context of a young, volatile democracy which felt -- not without reason -- under threat of a hostile takeover, politically or culturally. The office of the president was apparently considered powerful enough that the office holder could change the country. Immigration influx was continuous and huge. The provision guaranteed that the office holder would come from the "long-established", if such a thing existed, families. Such a member of the establishment would be less likely to alter the character of the emerging nation.

I'm not sure whether this is an argument supporting Cruz' eligiblility. One one hand, the requirements for his mother regarding the time she must have spent in the U.S. in order to make Cruz a citizen by birth support the notion that she was rooted in the U.S. But because there are no such requirements for Cruz himself, one could argue that he was for the intents and purposes of the consitutional provision -- the president should be rooted in the U.S. -- only as good as any naturalized alien.

In addition to the legal subtleties I'd like to take note of the intent of that constitutional requirement that only natural born citizens can be president. The obvious result of this provision is that no newcomer can become president. The president should be rooted in the United States.

This must be seen in the historical context of a young, volatile democracy which felt -- not without reason -- under threat of a hostile takeover, politically or culturally. The office of the president was apparently considered powerful enough that the office holder could change the country. Immigration influx was continuous and huge. The provision guaranteed that the office holder would come from the "long-established", if such a thing existed, families. Such a member of the establishment would be less likely to alter the character of the emerging nation.

I'm not sure whether this is an argument supporting Cruz' eligiblility. One one hand, the requirements for his mother regarding the time she must have spent in the U.S. in order to make Cruz a citizen by birth support the notion that she was rooted in the U.S. But because there are no such requirements for Cruz himself, one could argue that he was for the intents and purposes of the consitutional provision -- the president should be rooted in the U.S. -- only as good as any naturalized alien.