I should have worded it to say:
“no one out side of the eligibility crowd thinks that the natural born citizen = two citizen parents is the only legally valid definition.”
Because that is what WKA did - address those other circumstances that Minor v. Happersett deliberately did not address.
MvH did address those other circumstances. This is the great flaw in the Ankney argument. They only read enough of the decision to find an inconvenient definition of NBC and failed to read the next few sets of paragraphs where Waite talks about how the children of alien parents can be naturalized. Otherwise, Ankeny correctly acknowledged that Minor answered the question about how NBC is defined: all children born in the country to TWO citizen parents.