Thats been decided a long time ago, but a few refuse to accept reality:
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
All four of these cases held essentially the same definition: That two citizen parents are require [sic].
But the squirmers try to find a wiggle word somewhere in the decisions to frasp [sic] at rather than just accepting what the court held four times.”
I’ll save you the trouble. It’s not there. Nor is the imaginary “Both parents must be citizens for the child to be a NBC” requirement found in the test of the Constitution. Nor in any SCOTUS decision. Nor in the U.S. Code.
You “global citizens” keep on polluting discussion threads with your unsupported and unsupportable opinions (crude propaganda to be sure).
Not one of you has ever posted anything factual or truthful.
I have posted the entire decisions several times recently, and links to the decisions uncountable times. Since you offer nothing, just do your part to self-educate, and search my postings, and you will be blessed.
On top of that, one of the other 4 cases, the WKA case, also did not define NBC. In fact, the ruling showed that Ark, born in the US to parents who were not working for the Chinese Empire, was a citizen at birth. So if that case supported anything, it was more that place of birth is more important than lineage in determining citizenship at birth.