[philman_36]

Something in the syllabus is not automatically a ruling.
Why do you qualify your statement with "automatically"?

For example, Minor did not rule that “The word “citizen “ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.”
And yet what do we find in the full decision?

For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words 'subject,' 'inhabitant,' and 'citizen' have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.

That's what the syllabus says but only in fewer words, right?
1. The word "citizen " is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

[philman_36]

@MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

Search/Find "citizen".

[philman_36]

So, do you think I can find something in the decision that will substantiate citizen parents just like in the syllabus but only in a shorter manner?