This is wrong in two ways. Waite said it was the "nomenclature" of the framers of the Constitution to define NBC as all children born in the Country to citizen parents. You already admitted this is NOT in English common law. Second, the Minor court gave a negative declaration that was affirmed by the Ark court. The 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The 14th amendment only recognizes citizenship for those born in the country to resident aliens. If that is equivalent to English common law, then it means that English common law does NOT define NBC. Again, the only way this can be reconciled is to admit which common law the Minor court used to define NBC by requiring citizen parents. We all know where it came from, so it's okay to admit it and to admit you've been wrong about this from day one.
The Minor court screwed up by using Vattel as if he gave an accurate summary of common law. However, the passage they used didn’t use the term NBC, and only a bad translation from 1797 made it look like it did. And that passage was not an attempt to summarize English common law, anyways.
That is why a statement made in passing, irrelevant to the case, is not considered binding. For Minor’s purpose, all that mattered is that no one disputed the idea that a child born in the country to two citizen parents was a citizen.
That is why WKA, with a long and detailed review of the law and the meaning of NBC & NBS is considered binding, and Minor is not. Minor was not about who is a citizen. It was about if all citizens had a right to vote. It was a voting rights case, not a citizenship one.
That you cannot see that is proof you are nuts.