As I said, read Defining Natural-Born Citizen by P.A. Madison. Some excerpts:
The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment obviously affects how we view natural-born citizens because for the first time there is a national rule of who may by birth be a citizen of the United States. Who may be born citizens of the States is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.
Thus Obama may be disqualified and McCain may be disqualified. So might Jindal. Go through the 1001 Obama citizenship threads if you want more information.
I guess it up to the courts to interpret the Constitution, we'll see.
I wonder if they are bringing up Jindal, saying, if you want us to accept Jindal as natural born, you have to accept Obama as natural born. For the record, I think the issue of divided loyalties is a tricky one. Most legal immigrants are far more loyal to the United States than a lot of natural born citizens. I know that Jindal is a great loyal American. I do not know that of Obama.
"Anchor babies also do not qualify as natural born as their citizenship was created by an act of law and they have divided loyalties."
And what "act of law" was it that "created their citizenship". Sorry, but I don't buy your argument. And neither will the courts.