Not to interfere with you have life in the world
but jus sanguinus goes back to english law before the constitution was signed. That means no statute was passed after the Constitution was signed - it was already defined as such. The english defined it as if the father, and later sometimes if the father and mother, were parents. Nowhere did it say anything about just the mother.
Most of the democrat lawyers in the link (and the links from that link) agree with me you need to go back to common law to see it defined.
Differences (with the democrat lawyers - who nevertheless say Cruz is ineligible - but will never be talking about McAfee):
Most of them say nothing about parentage. You always needed parentage. Anchor babies are a new invention. Slaves, indians, and foreigners never gave birth to americans just because they were born in the right place.
None of the talk about dual citizenship. Dual citizenship is excluded in common law - you were either one or the other.
If you were working for government it was considered differently than just being a civilian living overseas.
The big one. Under the original law, it was not the mother, it was the father - or later the father and mother, never the mother alone, where parentage mattered.
Only Cruz's mother was a citizen (if she remained one), born in Canada to a civilian, father fought for a hostile foreign power - Castro.
Only Obama's mother was a citizen (if she remained one), might have been born in America? to a civilian, mother might have been a communist - hostile foreign power.
McAfee was born to an American father (no data on when mother got citizenship), on a us base, while his father worked for the US government.
McAfee meets the original common law criteria because his *father* is a citizen, as well as being actively employed by the government, as well as the original intent of the phrase to keep out the influence of a foreign power.
