Because of the 14th amendment. Viriginia Minor claimed she was a citizen by virtue of that amendment and the court rejected her claim because she was a natural born citizen.
That wording--"all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction"--is what you claim defines an NBC, and yet the court doesn't say "natural born" again.
Why would they need to?? The decision cited Art II Sec I for the term and then they defined it in the next paragraph. How many more times does the term need to be mentioned for the point to be understood??
I don't think that's right. From what I've read, she didn't claim that the Fourteenth made her a citizen--i.e., that she was not a citizen before that. Rather, she claimed that the Fourteenth's provision that "no State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" meant that Missouri couldn't abridge her voting privilege. (If you have a source that says her case was that the amendment made her a citizen, I'd be interested to read it.)
The court didn't reject her claim because she was a natural born citizen as opposed to a Fourteenth-made citizen. Rather, they said that because people who were obviously NBCs before the Fourteenth had always been subject to voting restrictions, voting must not be among the "privileges or immunities" guaranteed by the Constitution to all citizens.
Why would they need to??...How many more times does the term need to be mentioned for the point to be understood??
And yet you claim that their failure to mention it in the "Some authorities go further" sentence means they were drawing this incredibly important distinction between one kind of born citizen and another. So I'll ask you the same thing: by that point, they'd already mentioned born citizens, citizens by birth, natural born citizens, and natives. How many more times does the term need to be mentioned for the point of the "some authorities" sentence to be understood? Apparently you think that they didn't say it in one sentence on purpose, to communicate this vital distinction, but didn't say it in another sentence because they'd said it enough already. Like I said, I really don't see how anyone can read it that way.