There is no amendment to the constitution or SCOTUS ruling that says both parents (or any parents) are required to be citizens to confer citizenship upon birth to a child born in the US
I happen to agree with you, but many disagree.
While I happen to believe jus solis applies, with a few minor exceptions, the Supremes have never definitively ruled on the definition of NBC, leaving it open to question, as the earlier Court said.
When they do rule, I believe they will say parentage is irrelevant.
“There is no amendment to the constitution or SCOTUS ruling that says both parents (or any parents) are required to be citizens to confer citizenship upon birth to a child born in the US
Not exactly within an Amendment, but the major writer of the 14th had a lot to say about the issue.
To quote Leo Donofrio from http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ :
“My article concerning Rep. Bingham (aka father of the 14th Amendment) highlighted three statements made on the floor of the House which were not challenged by other Representatives. One of the Bingham quotes from 1862 was this:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)) “
......
“Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) “
If that definition was good enough for the writer of the 14th Amendment and Congress, it’s good enough for me.