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.
Well, no. This is not true at all. The Supreme Court has legal precedence. Its definition as proposed in Minor v Happersett and as affirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." I would agree that many people today are confused and equate native-born with natural-born, but by legal precedence, native-born still requires birth to citizen parents under the definition used in those decisions. The only way Rubio is natural-born is if his parents became U.S. citzens before he was born.