I’ve read alot of the court opinions, I have all of US reports on my machine. Sometimes they are very clear and somewhat dry and there is little melodrama.
But many times there are very subtle meanings and you would almost have to take a couple semesters of history to figure out whats up with the parties involved, or even other parties not involved but who may be affected by the decision.
This one looks crystal clear to me. He says DO NOT conclude as a question of law whether children born of alien parent(s) are citizens based on the findings in this case.
And as we have all pointed out time and time again, we MUST infer that there is some kind of difference between somebody generically being a “citizen” and the highest standard, somebody being a “natural born citizen”
Sure there is. We have naturalized citizens. They aren't "natural-born."
I clarify that I cite Minor to demonstrate that Chief Justice Waite did not look to de Vattel to define the undefined "natural-born citizen." As you recognized, he looked to "common law," though which "common law" I acknowledge is not stated. I say it's English common law; RegulatorCountry says it's "something other than English" common law. It very well could be, but if it's American common law, then we must know which case put us on a different path. He claims to know of "US precedents" before 1788 which prove his point, but as of yet, he has not dispensed with the goods.