I never said Minor's citizenship was in dispute. The Court didn't say it was in dispute either. The Court said in MvH that citizenship must be affirmed on the record before it can address any other question.
Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different States. Under this it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist the case must be dismissed.The Court had to affirm Minor's citizenship before it could address whether or not she had the right to vote. Thus the affirmation of her citizenship was not mentioned in passing. It was the basis of the plaintiff's argument and the Court considered it and spoke extensively about it as part of their decision.
I want you to find me the EXACT sentence where Scotus tells you Minor’s parents were American Citizens.
Strawman.
Oh really????
Find it in any of these cases:
Reynolds v. United States
Wilkerson v. Utah
Kilbourn v. Thompson
Same court.
If her citizenship was GERMANE to this case you would have have a discussion of her parents citizenship.
You want to see the difference??
Flores -Villar was a citizenship case.
Scotus discussed Nguyen in that case. This time oral arguments didn’t breath a word about NBC.
But as for citizenship - look at the difference between this when it is germane and Minor WHEN IT WAS NOT.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/09-5801
Minor was a VOTING case NOT a citizenship case.