The holding of Minor was that the 14th Amendment did not give women the right to vote. Therefore, the discussion of citizenship was not essential to the result-- Ms. Minor was found to be a natural born citizen, but not entitled to vote because of her gender. Had she been found to be a citizen but not a natural born citizen, she would have likewise not been eligible to vote; had she not been a cittizen at all, she would have not been eligible to vote. The discussion of her citizenship was not essential to the holding, and is therefore dictum.
That's not just me saying that; the court in Wong Kim Ark said the same thing; the court in Ankeny said it; Judge Malihi said it; the case in Virginia last month said it. No case after Minor has ever said that the discussion of citizenship in Minor is a holding or is binding precedent.
As I said above, "the law" is not what people on an internet forum say it is; the law is-- by definition-- what the courts say it is. No court will ever hold that someone born in the United States to parents lawfully here (whether as citizens or legal aliens) is not a natural born citizen unless their parents were foreign diplomats. You can take that to the bank.
That is correct.
"There is no doubt that German shepherds are dogs. There is some doubt whether poodles are dogs, but that's not a question we need to be concerned with right now."
"See! The Supreme Court says there's 'no doubt' your poodle isn't a dog!"
You need to actually read the decision. You don't seem understand the first thing about it. Nearly half of the decision is devoted to explaining the different ways one can become a citizen. Minor made an argument based on being a citizen under the 14th amendment, and the court unanimously rejected that argument because she fit the NBC definition. It was not simply dicta. What point does it serve to talk about her being born to citizen parents when it wasn't part of her argument??? Think about that a while.
That's not just me saying that; the court in Wong Kim Ark said the same thing;
No it didn't. The Ark court cited Minor to explain that the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens. It upheld the Minor decision and affirmed that the NBC is based on having citizen parents.
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, ...
Why does the court EMPHASIZE that Minor was born to citizen parents if NOT for how it fits the NBC definition??
the court in Ankeny said it;
The Court in Ankeny said a lot of things that just aren't legally supported. It contradicted itself by citing the exact reason why Wong Kim Ark and jus soli do NOT define natural-born citizenship:
In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Ark was found to be a citizen via the 14th amendment. But only six years after the 14th amendment was ratified, the Minor court said it clearly did NOT define natural-born citizenship. They did this by rejecting Virginia Minor's argument. Now how and why did Ark cite Minor on this detail if it is NOT "essential" to the holding??