Chester A. Arthur was born in Vermont of a natural-born American citizen mother (both her parents traced their lineage back to families who had for generations been living in Vermont), and an Irish citizen father who did not become a naturalized American citizen until Chester was 12 years old. Therefore, Arthur did not himself meet the test of "natural born" under the circumstances; i.e., he was born to parents who were not both citizens, either natural-born or naturalized, at the time of his birth — and this "eligibility issue" was discussed in the newspapers of the time, before and after his election.
DiogenesLamp, I agree with you: Chester A. Arthur "was NOT a natural born citizen" of the United States.
If Rubio was born to parents who were both naturalized citizens at the time of his birth (whether he was born on U.S. soil or elsewhere), then he would be eligible for presidential office. Though I'm not sure of the parents' details here, I do dimly recall reading somewhere recently that his parents were both naturalized before he was born — in which case Rubio would be eligible for presidential office. [Yay!!!] :^)
Jindal's situation is that he was born to parents who were both Indian citizens at the time of his birth in America. Evidently neither had been naturalized as citizens by that time. This would clearly make him ineligible for presidential office.
Natural-born citizenship is based on the international-law doctrine of jus sanguinis — "law of the blood." I.e., of one's parentage.
Native-born citizenship would be based on the doctrine of jus soli, "law of the soil"; i.e., without reference to parentage at all. And this is why I think the way the Fourteenth Amendment is being interpreted these days is on shaky constitutional ground: It is tantamount to removing all qualifications for citizenship other than one's place of birth. Thus one can be a "native-born" American citizen and be the child of foreign parents — i.e., a putative "American" child of parents who have no allegiance to the United States.
And of course naturalized citizenship is based on the legal process of qualifying as a "newly-minted" American, regardless of place of birth or parentage, which involves swearing an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.
A final thought: You just know that there's got to be something wrong with the way the Fourteenth Amendment is understood these days when you see thousands of Chinese women coming to the U.S. to have their babies — just to get the kids American "citizenship" and passports — and then going back home to China, with the kids.
Not to mention the "anchor baby" phenomenon of mothers of other nationalities who enter the U.S. to give birth, and then who stay here with the kid, who then qualifies for all kinds of public benefits (at taxpayer expense), and have greater ease of bringing their other relatives into the country because that baby was born here.
At least the Chinese mothers take themselves and their babies back home. I.e., they do not become effective wards of the State — i.e., of the taxpayer....
It is a pretty sad state of affairs when Chinese mothers, from what is still pretty close to being a Third-World country, have a better understanding of American law than the Vattel Birthers. The Chinese mothers get it-—if your kid is born in America, she or he is a American citizen, and one day, can be president.
And this is what these people do not get. Their theory of citizenship begats this exact absurdity. Even THEY know it's wrong, they just can't admit it.
Read this Article by George Will and this other Article by Ann Coulter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38409
It is important to spread the word about what IS the truth about American citizenship. Not only does the truth make inherent sense, it SOLVES all these nonsensical problems.