You are the one that posted the Ankey case. I then posted the excerpt from the Ankey case that states Minor did not decide the issue.
Btw, the definition of NBC was not relevant to the Minor case.
Why don’t you understand that?
Even if they had explicitly stated there was only one definition it still could be stripped away from the case because it was not germane and not part of the case.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States,
- - -
As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States,
- - -
From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.
In this review, the child of a foreign national father is completely dependent on the naturalization of the father and later, his intention to become a citizen. So, unlike Ankeny claims, this is contemplating and answering the question for the children born of aliens.
One other point that really needs to emphasized: Virginia Minor did NOT claim to be a natural-born citizen. She argued she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment birth clause. The court REJECTED this by arguing she was already a citizen, fitting the criteria that this court EXCLUSIVELY characterized as natural-born citizens. While it said some authorities go further in declaring children to be citizens without reference to the citizenship of the parents, it did NOT characterize this second class as natural-born citizens. That characterization was linked directly to one set of narrower criteria.
If there was any reason to believe NBC could be defined more broadly, there would have been no reason to reject Minor's 14th amendment argument. Instead the court focuses on the different ways one can become a citizen, but ONLY one of those ways was characterized as NBC. Keep in mind there was no dissent, and keep in mind, this definition of NBC is a verbatim match of Vattel from law of nations. That is not by accident. Waite called this the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar and that it's found OUTSIDE of the Constitution. Where it came from was obvious.
What other reason would there be to emphasize the parents were citizens if NOT to specifically link this to the Law of Nations definition of natural born citizenship???
NBC is crucial to M v H.
The USSC held that she was NBC, because she was born in the US to two citizen parents, therefore her citizenship was unquestioned.
DUH!