The Supreme Court has been pretty clear about what under the jurisdiction means.
For example, in ELK V. WILKINS, 112 U. S. 94 (1884):
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
“No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,”
and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/112/94/case.html
It uses the NBC clause and the naturalization clause to say there are only two categories of citizens - those born (from the NBC clause) and those naturalized. And someone “not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized”...
So, either Marco Rubio was born under the jurisdiction of the US, OR he needs to be naturalized to be a citizen. Period. And the basis for that was the NBC clause combined with the naturalization section.
The case went on to say:
“Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. ...”
That provides the exceptions for free people born within the bounds of the USA.
WKA goes on at length, and uses English common law:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
And:
Again, in [Lessee of Levy v. McCartee, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 102 102 (1832)], which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, ...this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke ... and saying that such a child “was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354.”
Notice again the equivalence between natural born and native born - used interchangeably.
From KWOCK JAN FAT V. WHITE, 253 U. S. 454 (1920):
“”It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee [Chinese] and his wife, Tom Ying Shee [also Chinese], he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived, and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909 as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, California.”
In SCHNEIDER V. RUSK, 377 U. S. 163 (1964):
“”We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
Again, there are two categories: naturalized, and either native born or natural born - the terms again are used as synonyms.
If Rubio is not a natural born citizen, then he is not a citizen at all, unless someone can find when he was naturalized. And if he was not born in the jurisdiction of the USA, then he is not a citizen at all unless naturalized.
Rubio was born in the US to parents who had sought asylum after escaping from Cuba in ~1960. He was born in 1971.
The discussion really is not about whether he’s legally qualified to be a candidate for the Presidency. That has been pretty well settled by courts who’ve determined that any native born citizen equals a natural born citizen.
The discussion is whether natural born meant something different at the time of the Constitution’s ratification.
Many believe it did not mean in that day what the courts say today, i.e., native born. To me it is a moot point, because today’s law will be followed.
However, originalists do not believe the courts are correct, so it is a good philosophical discussion. In my humble opinion, the details of Rubio’s life and that of his parents, plus the citizen law codified shortly after ratification, mean that Marco Rubio would have been considered a natural born citizen then as well as now.
JMHO, but I think originalism is the best way to stay true to the vision of America.
"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, S: 1."
Again, there are two categories: naturalized, and either native born or natural born - the terms again are used as synonyms.
I'd drop this particular line of argument, if I was you.
It says two SOURCES of citizenship, not two categories. Second, the part you cited says there was a difference of opinion on how citizenship was recognized prior to the 14th amendment so there can't only be citizenship from those born under the NBC clause. The Minor decision also acknowledged that some authorities go further than the NBC clause and recognize citizenship beyond that clause without regard to the citizenship of the parents. The 14th amendment would generally settle that doubt, but the jurisdiction as you've cited says "owing no allegiance to any alien power." Since Rubio's parents were exiles, that would negate any allegiance to a foreign power and thus qualify him for 14th amendment citizenship. If not that, then he probably falls under one of the naturalized at birth categories under the INA. Unless Rubio's parents naturalized before he was born, then obviously he is not a natural born citizen.