You are talking about current US citizenship law, and I’m talking about “natural born” in the US Constitution. No way native citizen and natural born should mean the same thing, but they do, so we’re left with a useless differentiation from the past that is wise, but is ignored.
So, no way that Jindal is eligible.
It’s a moot point. Romney is desperate for Electoral College help and Louisianna is already a “safe romney” state. Jindal doesn’t help him in any way. No big Indian-American demographic, the birthers will be incensed, males are already with him, and Louisianna is already his.
He’s going for some otherwise qualified person who helps him in some way, electorally or demographically.
Imho, he can’t do better than Rubio, who brings Florida and Hispanics, but he might consider Paw (MN), Snyder (MI), or Corbett (PA), because he needs an electoral college game changer and all those states are Obama states according to Rasmussen that also have Republican governors.
If he could become competitive in one of those AND hold the Bush states, then he has dealt a major blow to Obama.
“According to Lynch v Clarke and the 14th amendment, Jindal would be eligible.”
Only if your reading comprehension skills are non-existent.
The 14 Amendment provides “born citizenship” for persons that were NOT “Natural Born Citizens.” Neither quality of birth requires naturalization. Natural Born Citizenship is still the Article II requirement. Born citizenship doesn’t meet the requirement. Jindal both a born and naturalized citizen is still ineligible along with both Rubio and Obama.
Lynch v. Clarke is not a controlling precedent. Read U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Gray cited this decision only as an example of a fringe decision that went the furthest in recognizing citizenship on the basis of jus soli, but Gray does not rely on this decision to make Wong Kim Ark a citizen.
Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.
This citation in on page 674 of the decion. Gray rambles on for 31 more pages and decides that the foreign parents have to have permanent residence and domicil in the U.S. to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment. He does NOT declare such persons to be natural-born citizens. In fact, he says the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship and he cites Minor v. Happersett as the controlling, unanimous precedent:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
When Minor went elsewhere to define natural-born citizen, it used a definition that matched the law of nations' definition verbatim: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. It said the citizenship of persons born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents was in doubt. The only way to resolve that doubt is through an act of naturalization, such as the 14th amendment.