Since you raised this, I'd like to offer my comment on this much quoted and most misunderstood paragraph of Minor. V. Happersett. Here is the entire paragraph.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
You very correctly note that this paragraph was not the Court's attempt to define the term (natural born citizen), but just to say "we know Minor's a citizen - there's no doubt about that."
This paragraph has been widely cited as evidence that the status of natural born citizen requires two citizen parents. Not so. The paragraph was offered in support of Mrs. Minor's citizenship only. The definition offered was sufficient, but it was not exclusive.
Not only that, the Court did not actually say "two citizen parents". In every place, the formulation refers simply to 'children' and 'parents':
...never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens...
...children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents
...all children born of citizen parents...
Note that the plural 'parents' corresponds to the plural 'children'. Never does the court refer to plural 'parents' of a single child. It cannot be inferred from this that both parents of each child must be citizens. The plural is applied across the class of children and must include any child with a citizen parent as either mother or father since both are parents.
This is not different from the grammatical formulation: "The children and their parents gathered to hear the address by the headmaster."
This sentence does not imply and cannot be taken to imply that each parent of every child had gathered to hear the headmaster speak, only that there are multiple children and multiple parents of unspecified but presumably mixed genders. That's it.
But the more important point is the one you raise. The Court did indeed confirm (as dicta) that a child born in the United States to two citizen parents meets the criteria for citizenship by birth, and the Court speculated that a child born in the United States of non-citizen parents might also be a citizen by birth. But, the Court did not speculate or rule on any other combination of circumstances that might result in citizenship by birth - simply because they did not need to in order to establish that Mrs. Virginia Minor was indeed a citizen.
And, that was their only purpose in this particular exposition of the law.
Plus, she being born in the US, and Cruz being born abroad, the case just doesn't apply to him. On the question of citizenship, the case is best viewed as one views a commentary on the law, illuminating, perhaps, principles of law. But it has only persuasive force, and that, in the realm of citizenship to persons born in the US, of non-citizens.
Right. When arguing about this once a while back, I found an opinion that read "children whose fathers blah blah blah." I asked if this meant that a child had to have more than one father. No answer, of course.