Which is very important to being a natural born citizen, yes.
Therefore he would have been a birthright citizen even if he had been born on the island of Antarctica. Location of birth only matters for determining U.S. citizenship when you’re not born to two U.S. citizen parents.
Well, not exactly true. McCain was not eligible for very different reasons having to do with the location of his birth and the timing of it.
Chin on Senator McCain's U.S. Citizenship
Senator John McCain and Natural Born Citizenship: The Full Symposium
Obama needs to have been born on U.S. soil to claim birthright citizenship. His father was not a U.S. citizen and his mother was only 18 or 19 when he was born, making it impossible for her to have lived in the U.S. for the required period of time to confer citizenship on him.
There you go. That would make him a native born citizen but not a natural born citizen.
No, it would make him a natural born citizen. Where is this native born citizen stuff coming from? There are only two categories. You’re a natural-born citizen or a naturalized citizen. A child born today an illegal immigrant mother in El Paso is a natural-born citizen. I’m also a natural born citizen, because I was born in Boise, Idaho to two U.S. citizen parents who were both fourth-generation Americans. There is no distinction in the law between us. I’m eligible to be president in 5 years and they’ll be eligible in 35 years.
This is from page 2 of your michiganlawreview symposium conference link:
"Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens." What do you say to that? That seems to drive my point home. If Obama was born in Hawaii (or Texas, or Vermont, or the District of Columbia for that matter), then he is a natural born citizen. If he wasn't, then he isn't.
Do you disagree with your link that you posted?
: "According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” Unless born in the United States, a person “can only become a citizen by being naturalized . . . by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens . . . .” A person granted citizenship by birth outside the United States to citizen parents is naturalized at birth; he or she is both a citizen by birth and a naturalized citizen."
Two sources of citizenship, not three as you mention. I would wager that the students at the top 10 University at Michigan Law School who edited this commentary know more about this issue than you or I, as does the University of Arizona professor who penned the piece, and the students who undoubtedly assisted him with the research. I see no mention of the three types of citizenship in this piece. Could you point it out to me?
"The first sentence of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” Persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are natural born citizens as, for example, the Supreme Court held in Rogers v. Bellei. But the Fourteenth Amendment does not define the “United States.” Surely it includes the states, but it does not say what else, if anything, it covers."
Therefore Jindal is eligible by virtue of the fact that he was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in 1971. He is a natural-born citizen. He acquired his citizenship at the time of birth by virtue of the fact that he was born in Louisiana after the passage of the 14th amendment.