This decision says people meeting these criteria are NBC.
It does NOT say that people NOT meeting them are NOT NBC. It says there have been doubts expressed. It does not say whether those doubts are correct.
The case says X=3, but since it also does not say that X=/=7, it could mean that X=7.
That is not the way the worlds works.
Well, yes, actually it does. "These are the natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguihsed from aliens or foreigners." Had this been inserted one sentence later, the meaning would mean what you think it means. Instead, it said that some authorities go further in delcaring persons to be citizens, but it never characterizes nor suggests that such persons can be characterized as natural-born citizens. Instead it says, that such persons' citizenship would be in doubt. IOW, in this context, natural-born means citizenship that is without doubt.
Standing ovation, and thank you very much for your succinctly stated view.
Here is what I have posted elsewhere in my attempts to help well-meaning but "tough-minded" FReepers realize that not only is Minor not binding law on the point, it does not define NBC.
The choice is:
A. Minor defines natural born citizenship as belonging to only those born in the U.S. of two citizen parents, or
B. Minor defines a particular class of citizens as natural born citizens but does not exclude the possibility of other classes.
Suppose we are talking about Irish Setters (born in the U.S. of citizen parents), you might say these were four-legged animals (these were natural-born citizens).
Does that mean you believe no other four-legged creatures (citizens) can be classified as four-legged animals (natural-born citizens)? Certainly not.
Would it have been more helpful had the court said, if that is what was intended, that these were the natural born citizens? Certainly, it reasonably excludes other possibilities.
Would this have been even more helpful: these and these alone were natural born citizens? Most certainly, it expressly excludes all other possibilities.