Okay, My first point is that the article seems to be based on the Wong Kim Ark court decision which declared Ark a "citizen" based on their understanding of the 14th amendment. A lot of people who have looked at the court's ruling on the Wong Kim Ark case believe the court decided the issue wrongly *, but even if they did, they did not go so far as to say that Wong Kim Ark was a "natural born citizen", they just declared him to be a "citizen." It appears some subsequent bureaucrat or lawyer type asserted that citizenship based on the court's version of the 14th amendment citizenship was the same thing as "natural born citizenship." The 14th amendment does not grant "natural born citizen" status, it grants only "citizen" status. In other words, it does not redefine the term as understood in 1787 written into Article II.
My next point, is the source of your article is "Dr. Conspiracy." He is a liberal activist that has consistently made misleading arguments to prove Obama is eligible. He runs a website called "Obamaconspiracy.org" and in my opinion he is dishonest and a liar. I have personally argued with him extensively for a couple of weeks, and I found him to be impenetrable in both his idiocy and his partisanship. He has been banned here at Free Republic. Using "Dr. Conspiracy's" arguments on this issue would be like asking a Nazi for his opinion on Jewish law. He is hostile to the truth and he has an agenda.
At this point, I think your best argument is that the founders were willing to accept the children of resident aliens as "natural born citizens" provided their father eventually became a citizen. I see a little bit of support for this argument in the historical record. I would look for more supporting examples from the founding period. If I were you, I would contact freeper "xzins", because he seems to have information which i've not seen elsewhere claiming Marco Rubio's father had stated his intention to become a citizen prior to Marco's birth. (Though Patlin points out that the documentation we have doesn't support this assertion.)You might also check out the congressional debates on the "naturalization act of 1790". Be sure to check out both the HOUSE and SENATE portions of the Debate. Here is the index to the HOUSE debate. Here is the index to the SENATE debate. Just look up the word "naturalization" and refer to the correct page number for the beginning of the debates.
I hope this helps.
* Several Members of the House of Representatives and Also the Senate, stated specifically that the 14th amendment was NOT meant to apply to the Children of Aliens, rather it was to apply only to those owing allegiance to this nation. However, there have also been statements by some congress members indicating that it WOULD apply to the children of aliens. It appears that there may have been some confusion as to which it was, hence the court rendering a confusing verdict. The Civil rights act of 1866, (upon which the 14th amendment was based) is clearer. It says:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"