I will say it again —
In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state “Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3.” referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).
The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, “...children of citizens [plural = both parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...” (THIRD CONGRESS Session II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: “How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents” Document margin note: “Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.”)
The 1790 act was repealed and replaced by the 1795 act!
NOTE- the 1795 act states
1. children of citizenS of USA shall be considered US citizens.
2. right of citizenship shall NOT descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...!
obozo’s father was neither a USA citizen nor a resident in USA! (he was only a student)
Rubio’s father and mother were NOT citizens of USA at time of his birth!
So
if obozo was really born in USA he can be a US citizen by virtue of his birth place, but he is NOT a nbc!
Rubio was born in USA so he is a USA citizen but he is NOT a nbc and NOT constitutionally elig to be the president of USA!
nbc = born in USA to 2 USA parentS!
I have no comment on the nbc question.
I do have a problem with your understanding oc the plural in citizens and parents. Because the object is plural, each member of the set can be singular even with the s.
Example: “The children of heads of state shall be accorded diplomatic immunity” does not imply that any nation has more than one head.