That said: neither Rubio, nor Cruz, nor Jindal, was then, is now, nor ever will be ELIGIBLE to the office of POTUS; which requires that the person be a NATURAL BORN citizens (born of 2 US citizen parents at the TIME of his birth, and born on US soil),
That’s not the current interpretation of the law per the Supreme Court.
It will never be (and should never be) “born on US soil” because that interpretation would disparage and diminish the service and sacrifice of the US military servicepeople, who are often assigned overseas in the service of our country. A rigid “on-soil” interpretation would penalize their children for the service of their parents.
That said, here’s the difficult part that it would be nice if the Court would rule on.
The entire purpose of the “natural born” clause is to insure that a person running for President was somebody who was raised here and therefore has an American mindset. In a perfect world, we’d all agree that measuring this by one parent or two, or place of birth, no longer works to guarantee somebody was raised here, due to the instantaneous nature of air travel. I know of several US families living abroad who, just to be on the safe side, flew home a month before each child’s due date so they could be born here, and fit the “two parent on US soil” criteria, but none of those kids has spent more than two weeks at a time in US in their lives, and never will, until they are adults.
But, they should be qualified for the Presidency? But a newborn to a mixed-citizen household who happened to be born in another country but came immediately here and lived their entire lives here isn’t?
That’s a problem.
Today, in any embassy in the world, a newborn baby will be issued a US passport if ONE of the parents are citizens. And someday, some future Court will actually decide to define what “natural born” actually means (although because of examples like the above, you could still have somebody who is a foreigner for all practical purposes elected President.