If that's the case, then why didn't Chief Justice Waite resort to "how language...provides the inherent definition" in his dicta to Minor? Why'd he consult "common law" instead?
You keep trying to utilize Supreme Court cases which attempt to define the Constitution's natural born citizen phrase as equivalent to and arising from the definition used by British common law. Does this mean you are arguing the natural born citizen phrase of the Constitution is defined by and the same as the British natural born subject?