If that is the definition of "natural born", then none of the first 9 presidents of the US were natural born, since there was no USA for them to be citizens OF at the time of their birth.
Quite simply, anyone born in the US or its territories is considered a natural-born citizen. Where the question arises is in the case of a child born outside of the US to one or more parents that are US citizens. The child is a citizen of the US by virtue of his parents, but is he a "natural born" citizen? Some argue that because the child born overseas to an American parent would not be a citizen except for his parent, he is not a "natural born" citizen. On the other hand, a child born in the US is a citizen regardless of the citizenship of his parents - his US citizenship is not dependent upon his parents citizenship, and so he would be "natural born".
I'm not saying that is the correct answer, just pointing out some potential arguments. However, there is no question about whether or not Jindal is "natural born". Ted Cruz, there may be a question. But it is ultimately a political question and not a legal question, as we saw with Obama.
In addition, your definition of what constitutes a "natural born" citizen has been proven wrong many times on this forum. Natural born has been established as having two citizen parents and born under the jurisdiction of the United States. In this scenario, there is no other condition than being a natural born citizen. That is why the term "natural born" is used.
No, the first nine as it turned out were exempt from this reading of "natural born."