I don't mind that you want to disagree, but you haven't given an accurate basis for disagreeing. The NBC definition was NOT a side issue. The court framed the petitioner's arugment as basing her voting rights on being a 14th amendment citizen. That argument was rejected on the basis of natural-born citizenship.
The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
In the underlined part above, V. Minor's citizenship is claimed on the basis of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. The court spent the next several paragraphs saying that women didn't need this amendment to be citizens, that they were already citizens and that all citizens before and after the 14th amendment did NOT have an inherent right to suffrage per the privileges and immunities of their citizenship. The court defined NBC to justify their rejection of the argument that was presented.
The Court in WKA recognized that V. Minor's citizenship was part of the finding ... and that her citizenship was due to being born in the country to citizen parents. That's NOT a side issue.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
WKA says she was a citizen of the states by being born of citizen parents within the United States. This DOES hold on the elements of NBC as you say.
You may be correct, so let’s test your principal assertion.
You have consistently argued that defining the NBC term was key to dismissing the 14thA.
1. If one removes section 2 of the syllabus - the only section that refers to born of parent citizens - does it damage the rationale or make the decision nonsensical? Of course not, NBC was not essential to the courts finding, citizenship was.
2. Reinsert 2. and ask: Would the type of citizenship held by Minor have made a difference to the court for dismissing applicability of the 14thA in her instance? Of course not, 2. merely states “citizen” and not NBC.
As a practical matter, the court was concerned with the provisions of the Constitution and the 14thA. It was sufficient that petitioner be even an ordinary citizen in order to start that inquiry.