Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California- Irvine School of Law, was kind enough to provide a quote.
“The claim is meritless. I’m unaware of any serious scholar or court suggesting that someone born on U.S. soil is not a natural-born citizen if his parents were not citizens at the time,” Hasen told LawNewz.com.
Someone who is born in the US could rightly be described as a “born citizen”, we suppose, but the constitution doesn’t discuss born citizens and the presidency; it discusses “natural” born citizens and the presidency. “Natural” has to mean something, and we have a pretty good idea what, and refusing to acknowledge that obvious fact and calling yourself a “scholar” doesn’t change anything.
Apparently Senator Rubio was born in Miami but neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth, and accordingly under the best understanding of “natural born citizen” he is not one, and therefore not eligible to be president.
As with Senator Cruz, and just to once again demonstrate that we have no dog in this fight, we are agreeable to a constitutional amendment to abolish the “natural born citizen” requirement, and we are agreeable that it should be done immediately and that both Cruz and Rubio would then be eligible.
But we are not agreeable to corruption of language and thought by “scholars” or anyone else. And that’s what this particular debate is about.