Minor specifically stated it was NOT trying to give a comprehensive definition of NBC. That is why trying to force the Court to accept it was stupid. The Minor decision SAID they were not going to settle the dispute about the meaning.
But the fact that there was a dispute strongly suggests that the 14th Amendment did not resolve that issue. The decision closest to the 14th Amendment did not claim that the 14th Amendment spoke to the definition of “natural born citizen”.
Wong Kim Ark didn’t even try to find out the meaning of the common law AT THE TIME OF THE SIGNING OF THE CONSTITUTION. It used as its source somebody explaining the then-modern British Nationality Act - even though the WKA court had acknowledged that the authority at the time the Constitution was written was VATTEL (who contradicts the source they cited).
That’s basically like looking to the modern definition of “gay” to find out how to understand the lyrics, “When Irish eyes are smiling, all the world seems bright and gay...”
Minor specifically stated it was NOT trying to give a comprehensive definition of NBC.
I disagree. Minor explicitly defined NBC and said that there was NO DOUBT about their explicit definition (born in the country of parents who are citizens).
Minor explicitly expressed DOUBTS, but doubts ONLY regarding whether the children of aliens and foreigners were CITIZENS, not whether they were NBC. Look the sentence regarding the children about whom there are doubts. The doubts are about whether those children are citizens, not whether they are NBC.
Minor reached a conclusive and NO DOUBT definition of NBC and they applied it to Ms. Minor. They said there was no need to resolve the CITIZENSHIP of the children of aliens and foreigners since Ms. Minor was NBC. Only with the ARK case were those doubts regarding 14A children of aliens and foreigners resolved.