Sorry, but what exactly is your point?? NBC is obviously a subclass of the term "citizen". No so-called "birther" would argue against that. Waite isn't trying to define what it means to be a citizen. He's rejecting Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen because she is a natural born citizen. If he accepted her argument, there was no need to explain why there are doubts about the citizenship of persons who are not born in the country to citizen parents. Second, what you and the other faithers and Obots overlook is that Waite distinguished natives or natural born citizens from aliens or foreigners. Anyone who is NOT born in the country to citizen parents is naturally an alien or naturally a foreigner. The only way they become citizens is through collective naturalization (by statute or Constitutional declaration) or by voluntary naturalization.
Never happened. Nope. Nuh-uh. At no time during the proceedings of the case was Minor's citizenship ever contested (had it been, she would not have had standing to bring the case in the first place), nor was it ever necessary for her to defend it. How could Waite be rejecting an argument she never made?
From the original Statement:
"It is admitted, by the pleadings, that the plaintiff is a native-born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri."
(Am I the only one in this discussion that has read the original brief and petition?)
If you mean subclass of the "citizen" which Waite describes as "born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents", then birthers argue against it constantly. Look at the number of times in this thread alone one birther or another has insisted Waite is talking about children born of two citizen parents on the one hand and of aliens or foreigners on the other. Obviously, any class of children born of two citizen parents cannot be a subclass of children born of aliens.