You really hack me off because either you are an idiot or are being obtuse on purpose.
Let me repeat.
I said REPEATEDLY that Minor’s citizenship was a FACT NOT IN DISPUTE.
In describing Minor, it would be perfectly appropriate to say that she was born in the US to American Citizens. It’s a fact in the case NOT IN DISPUTE. That doesn’t mean the only definition of NBC is the most restrictive.
In fact, if you had bothered to read the lower court case in Ark you will see a less restrictive definition that the court says is controlling on them unless and until SCOTUS gives a different definition that is not part of Dictum.
Oh, and yeah SCOTUS AFFIRMED the lower court without exception.
And you are repeatedly wrong, because there was a dispute as to HOW she became a citizen. Read and learn. You seem to have missed huge sections of the decision, starting in the SECOND PARAGAPH:
The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
The bolded part is the citizen clause from the 14th amendment. The Minor court DISPUTED this argument.
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.
The court went on to explain different ways of becoming a citizen, which is when it volunteered the definition of natural-born citizenship, which was sufficient for rejecting Minor's 14th amendment citizenship argument. And to make sure this is CLEAR to you:
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.
Read that last sentence and let it sink in. Minor's argument of being a citizen via the 14th amendment was rejected. Because she was an NBC, the 14th amendment did NOT confer citizenship on her. The Wong Kim Ark decision affirms the principle by noting that:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.""
Gray says that by following Minor, the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. Then he explains this same principle in another fashion, by saying through the unanimous decision in Minor, that the Supreme Court was:
committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment
Now, keeping all this in mind, it should start being very obvious why Gray EMPHASIZED that Minor was born to citizen parents, even though it was never stated directly in Minor.