Your retort misses the point.
The absence of a definition in the Constitution is not an ABUSE, it is a relevant fact. You cited something that is clearly an abuse of power by the government.
I agree it is a fact, it is also a fact that the cited abuses are defined "in US Law or USSC decisions" — two of the three items that was cited as being relevant. Contemporary of the writing of the time was Blackstone and his commentaries on the laws of England, they were very popular here (they sold out, in a time when books were expensive) and he used and explained/defined the term natural born subject
which did, in fact, require the parents to also be subjects.