Based on what? Natural Born Citizen and Native Born Citizen are two different things. The former DOES NOT require citizen parentage while the latter does. Both Jindal and Rubio are Natural Born (born in the US) but not Native Born (born to US citizens in the US). It is only the former that matters per Art. 1 Sec. 2 as it unequivocally uses the term “Natural Born Citizen” NOT “Native Born Citizen.”
You have it exactly backwards.
“Natural Born Citizen and Native Born Citizen are two different things.”
Neither one exists. “natural born” was a description, not a title.
And here we find you again, popping off with the most ignorant blather. To be accurate, "native born" means to be born in a certain place. (your argument) "Natural born" means to be born a citizen inherently. You have the meanings EXACTLY backwards, and THAT notwithstanding the fact that in the early founding era of our country, the terms were used interchangeably. Perhaps the Supreme Court of the United States could explain it to you, though I doubt it.
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizenS became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.