In your statement, one presupposes the other. The interest in his birth is predicated on "only" those who oppose the "idea" of him becoming President.
Yes, that is a blanket statement concerning
"only" those who oppose the "idea" of him becoming president, which is false.
He was a Canadian and was born owing Canadian allegiance.
We are talking about his condition at birth. It doesn't matter that he later renounced that allegiance/citizenship. He was born with it.
But more to the point.
No Constitutional citizenship was conferred upon Cruz at birth or later.
Being a "natural born citizen" is a Constitutional requirement and depends solely on what the framers meant by that.
No Statute (law) or regulation can confer that upon him. His citizenship is, and was, by Statute only.
The Supreme Court already recognized that there are two possible categories that fit within the natural born citizenship clause.
One of which there is no doubt that it applies, which was those born of citizen parent
s on US soil.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
But there are doubts if the other category applies, which was those born on US soil regardless of the parents citizenship.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
Both the above require being born on our soil, neither of which Cruz falls into.
It isn't a matter of like. It is a mater of whether he meets the criteria of natural born citizen, which he clearly is not.
And a law was later passed giving those born there citizenship.
Matters not one bit to this argument.