If a child is born in the US to two parents, both of whom are US citizens, then that child is said to be a natural born citizen (see Vattel). The purpose of this is to ensure that the candidate does not have divided loyalties between the US and the country of one or both parents.
Note that there is no requirement that the parents both be natural born themselves, only that they be US citizens at the time of birth.
Most liberals will say that the requirement is that someone be born in the US and they call that ‘native born’, which suffices for them. The question of loyalty is irrelevant for them, if it serves their agenda.
But not a natural born citizen who can run for the office of the Presidency of The United States unless born in the USA or a territory. And apparently, a military base is not considered US Territory for this purpose. (I didn't find out if being born in an embassy counted otherwise...)
I argued with Lurkinanloomin (haven't seen that poster for a while) that if I were born outside the country on a military base as the offspring of a military family that I WOULD be eligible, but he convinced me I was wrong.
Growing up as a military dependent overseas, I had never heard of someone sending a pregnant military female or military wife stateside to have a baby, but there were plenty of people who had, and even some who were explicitly told to do so.
“If a child is born in the US to two parents, both of whom are US citizens, then that child is said to be a natural born citizen (see Vattel).”
False. Vattel said that described an indigenous person, not a “Natural Born Citizen”. NBC was injected into Vattel in a translation published AFTER the US Constitution.
Neither of Bobby Jindal's parents were citizens when he was born in the United States. How was he allowed to do so under your interpretation?