Except that he's not. Fuller was addressing the argument brought up by the appellant based on a citation from the lower court. The reason this assumption fails is proved at the conclusion of the dissent, where Fuller says he agrees with the majority on how to determine 14th amendment citizens, EXCEPT in Wong Kim Ark's case where the treaty with China was controlling.
In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens.
Read the underlined part above. It agrees that children become 14th amendment citizens at birth by being born to parents permanently located in the U.S. Past the underlined part, it notes that the "will of their native government" can prevent such persons from satisfying the subject clause. Keep in mind, that earlier in the dissent that Fuller specifically cites Vattel for the definition of NBC and that definition completely agrees with the Minor definition. Fuller, after all, is the guy who wrote the Ex Parte Lockwood decision that cites the Minor language correctly.
Unlike Mr. Rogers I disagree with Fuller's interpretation of what the WKA majority ruled because Fuller's dissent is based on a false parsing of the Minor NBC language.
It's not based on Minor at all and it's NOT based on the majority opinion in WKA. You're reading something that isn't there.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this. That Fuller quote in his dissent gets put into HIS mouth all the time (by some) as justification for claims that the WKA majority made Obama eligible under the 14A. I stand corrected.