The 14th amendment does not create "natural citizens." The condition of being a "natural citizen" is not based on manmade laws, else it wouldn't be "natural." It is a condition that is inherent, much the same as a genetic child versus an adopted child.
The 14th amendment was created for the purpose of granting Citizenship to the children of Slaves, who could not claim citizenship through the lineage of their parents. It would seem obvious to me that if being born here was all that was necessary to make one a "natural citizen" no such amendment would be needed because all of the slaves born here would already be "natural citizens."
In any case, the Court said in it's ruling of "Minor v Happersett, (1875. Seven years after the 14th amendment was passed.) specifically said the 14th amendment does not create "natural citizens."
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The 14th amendment DOES say who shall be "citizens" but it does NOT say who shall be "natural-born citizens." The court was simply acknowledging the obvious fact that the 14th amendment does not create or define "natural citizens."
As "natural citizens" existed prior to the 14th, what are we supposed to believe? That the 14th amendment somehow created "Extra-Natural" citizens?
You are a citizen one of two ways, naturalized or “natural born”. If you are born of the realm, you are a natural born citizen unless you are born of other heads of state, ambassador, foreign occupiers, etc.
Rubio was born in the US, or of the realm, of parents who were legally in the US. He is a natural born citizen. This would make Jindal nbC as well.
Children who are born in England to US military personal are also nbC since they are born of “the Realm”.