Get off the Indian kick. [in response to Loki]
The tribes want to be sovereign nations. Do you know what a sovereign nation is?
But, their nations are also within the territory of the United States.
Their reservations are within state borders and some of the reservations cross several state borders.
Yet, members of the tribes are considered wards of the state.
Most countries don't except dual citizenship and neither did the United States for most of it's history. How can the Indians be citizens of a sovereign nation and be a United States citizen.
That's why they have to be considered separately.

That's right, congress is usurping it's power by trying to make something in the past different from what it was.

Ted Cruz cannot be a US citizen at birth because he has a Canadian Birth certificate, not an American Birth certificate.

Stop trying to rewrite the laws.

The Framers didn't spell it out because they didn't have to.
If we take the time and make the effort to examine the WHOLE body of legal literature that the Framers were familiar with and had relied upon, it is apparent that "natural born", in the actual or literal sense, means birth in a particular place, to parents who owe actual obedience (allegiance) to the sovereign of that place. A "natural born" wh**ever, in the actual or literal sense, has always meant a "pure" wh**ever from birth.
In Henry Eelbeck's English t***slation (1720) of Cicero, multiple ancient cities claimed that Homer was one of their citizens. But only the Smyrneans could legitimately claim that Homer was one of their "natural born citizens" (Eelbeck, p.17 ). As you may recall from Greek mythology, Homer was born in Smyrna, of parents who were both local Smyrnean deities: the river god Meles, and the goddess Kretheis.
In 1758, Edward Spelman t***slated Roman Antiquities from Greek into English. His t***slation included a plea by Veturia to her son, Marcius Coriolanus, a Roman general who had been unfairly exiled from Rome, had sought refuge with Rome's enemy, the Volsci, and was now leading the Volscian army in a campaign to invade and destroy Rome. In Spelman's t***slation (p.358), "natural born citizens" is the English t***slation of the Greek fysei polites (natural citizens) which refer to persons who are, at birth, citizens of their parents' country exclusively (Smith (1890).
In 1774, Patsall t***slated the twelve-volume classic, Institutio Oratoria, by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, from Latin to English. Patsall's t***slation includes this text:
Therefore, if possible, every word and the very tone of voice, should bespeak the natural born citizen of Rome, that the language may be purely Roman, and not so by a right different from birth and education. (Institutes, Volume 2, p.32)
The phrase "natural born citizen" is the English t***slation of the Latin alumnum urbis (native of the city). Later in history, the Latin word alumnum would refer to children who were raised and educated by persons other than their natural parents, hence the modern day word "alumni".  But the original meaning of alumnum was "native" -- a person who, from birth, belongs to a particular city exclusively.  Patsall's t***slation implies that the natural born citizen of Rome was someone who was "purely" Roman by birth and "education" (upbringing or parenting).
Giles Jacob's New Law Dictionary was "the most widely used English law dictionary" during the time period in which the Constitution was written. It was first published in 1729. The 8th edition was published in 1762, the 9th in 1772, and the 10th 1782.
According to Jacob, every English subject is either born that way (naturally) or made that way (artificially by an act of Parliament or the King). Jacob is just one of several sources that defines a "subject born" (a subject by birth) as one born within the realm, to parents who owe actual obedience (allegiance) to the sovereign of that realm:
There are two incidents regularly that are necessary to make a subject born: first, that his parents, at the time of his birth, be under the actual obedience of the king; Secondly, that the place of his birth be within the king's d******ns. (Jacob (1782): Aliens)
In 1608, Francis Bacon explained that the phrase "natural born subject" has a general meaning and a specific meaning. In the general sense, "natural born subject" refers to anyone who is an English subject either "by birth or by act of parliament" (Case of the Post-Nati of Scotland, 1608, pp. 648-649). Even the US federal courts have recognized that the phrase "natural born", in the general sense, referred to nearly all English subjects, including naturalized subjects:
An alien naturalized is "to all intents and purposes a natural born subject." (United States v. Rhodes (1866), p.10)
But throughout the 1600s, the English courts have repeatedly ruled that an individual who acquires the status or legal position of a "natural born subject" by an act of Parliament (i.e., by naturalization) is not (repeat, is not) a "real" natural born subject. Such an individual is merely "deemed" to be, or "considered as", an English subject by a "fiction of law", which has no effect except in countries consenting to that fiction. The only "true" natural born subjects are those who are "subjects born".
Cunningham's Law Dictionary was the only law dictionary that James Madison ordered for the Continental Congress. It defines an actual or literal "natural born subject" as:
All those are natural born subjects, whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience [allegiance] of our king, and whose place of birth was within his d******ns. (Cunningham (1771): Aliens)
The exact same definition of "natural born subject" also appears in Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law -- Volume 1, 1736, p.77. (Warning: this is a 57MB PDF).
There are MULTIPLE late-18th-century sources which explain that a child born on English soil, to alien parents, is a statutory denizen (as distinguished from a denizen by letters patent issued by the king). A statutory denizen has the status or legal position of a "natural born subject", but is not "subject born" (a natural born subject in the actual or literal sense).
The point is, if we look at all of the legal writings as a whole (not just B****stone) that the Framers were familiar with and had relied upon, it is apparent that the phase "natural born", in the actual or literal sense, refers to birth in a particular place, to parents who owe actual allegiance to the sovereign of that place. This, I would argue, is the only definition of "natural born" that (a) is supported by the 18th century English legal literature that the Framers possessed and used, and (b) makes any sense in the US Constitution.

STATUTES, AMENDMENTS CANNOT RENDER ONE “NATURAL BORN”
There’s ample indication, however, that members of the US Supreme Court have consistently taken the position that foreign born children of US citizens who acquire their citizenship by means of Congressional enactments are considered by members of the Court to be “naturalized citizens.”
Two cases in particular help to illustrate this point, Montana v. Kennedy along with Rogers v. Bellei. Those two Supreme Court cases along with the case of Zimmer v. Acheson which was decided in the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit demonstrate that statutory citizenship is in fact a form of “naturalized” citizenship.

The case of Zimmer v. Acheson can shed some degree of understanding here on the meaning of the Rogers v. Bellei case and its relationship to the nature of the citizenship of Ted Cruz. In that case, Harry Ward Zimmer, who was born in Bavaria to a naturalized US citizen father, Werner Herman Zimmer, and a native-born US citizen mother was acknowledged by the court to have acquired his citizenship under Revised Statutes § 1993, the very same statute by which Aldo Bellei acquired his citizenship. Chief Judge Phillips, writing the opinion of the Court said, “If Werner Herman Zimmer, by virtue of his naturalization on October 30, 1896, was a citizen of the United States on August 9, 1905, the date of the birth of Harry Ward Zimmer, then the latter, at the time of his birth, became a citizen of the United States by virtue of the foregoing statute, but his status as a citizen was that of a naturalized citizen and not a native-born citizen.” [See: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/227742/zimmer-v-acheson-secretary-of-state/?q=Zimmer+v.+Acheson&order_by=score+desc&stat_Precedential=on]


U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Harry Blackmun was appointed by President Richard Nixon and served from 1970 to 1994
Returning to the Bellei case, Justice Blackmun, in delivering the majority opinion in the 1971 case of Rogers v. Bellei stated “But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” [Citing Justice Gray’s opinion in the 1898 case of US v. Wong Kim Ark - See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649] He points out that the citizenship of the plaintiff, Aldo Bellei was “wholly statutory” observing “The plaintiff’s claim thus must center in the statutory power of Congress and in the appropriate exercise of that power within the restrictions of any pertinent constitutional provisions . . . The Court has recognized the existence of this power. It has observed, “No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with.” [Citing Justice McReynolds’ majority opinion in the 1917 case of US v. Ginsberg – See: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/243/472.html] The Court went so far as to point out that Bellei’s citizenship rested purely on a statute which rested purely on Congress’ power to “naturalize.” In short, but for the generosity of Congress passing enactments conferring citizenship at birth upon children born abroad to US citizens, those children would be considered aliens.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/25/of-naturalized-and-natural-born-the-courts-point-of-view/

Homestead, if all you write above is true, defining a "natural born citizen" as born on US soil to two parents holding US citizenship, then what is going to happen to the Republican Convention if neither Kasich, Cruz or Trump have accrued that 1,237 delegate majority to seize the nomination?

What if Speaker Paul Ryan or RNC Chair Reince Priebus eliminates Ted Cruz because of his illegitimacy and instructs the caucus delegates to cast their second round of b****ting between Kasich and Trump? Surely, Kasich must have guessed this and has been h*****g on by the skin of his teeth, no matter what the odds.