I can’t argue about any of that. Main point remains, born in United States to residents of USA makes one NBC.
Parents citizenship is never mentioned in the Constitution.
Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, etc all had American parents. Vivek Ramaswamy’s parents were not yet citizens.
I prefer a person like Vivek 1000 times more than Biden, Pelosi or Schumer.
There are a lot of things in the Constitution that are implied but not explicitly stated. For example, the dates on which the President and Congress are to be sworn in are specified in the Constitution. But no mention of whether the Julian calendar or the Gregorian calendar (or for the matter, the Jewish or Islamic calendars) were being referenced. It was understood that the calendar in common use at the time was being referenced. Likewise, explicit mention of parents was not necessary when using a concept that people of the time were familiar with.
You’re arguing that, because no mention of parents is made, that a person’s parentage was considered to be irrelevant. But we know that’s not true, because for most of our nation’s history, simply being born here was not sufficient to grant a person citizenship, let alone natural born citizenship. The idea that being born here from illegal alien parents automatically made one a citizen, was an idea that was foreign to the framers. In other words, parentage effected someone’s citizenship status and was always understood to be relevant, regardless of whether it was explicitly stated or not. It was understood that parentage effected whether or not someone born on U.S. soil was a natural born citizen because that was part of its definition.