I did NOT leave out the important parts. They cite dozens of cases, most of which YOU are leaving out, as you should - the full quote would run a half dozen pages of text.
Minor does NOT say one must be born of two citizen parents to be a NBC. It says that of such a person there can be no doubt - which says, correctly, that in the 1870s some still doubted those born of one or two alien parents.
In WKA, they use the analogous ‘natural born subject’ to delve into the meaning of NBC, and conclude that common law says a NBS includes those born of alien parents legally present, and thus they assume NBC includes the same, and thus WKA would be considered a NBC - which was NOT in their specific ruling, but was the inescapable conclusion of their argument - as the dissent noted.
It is dishonest to Pretend M v H says there must be two citizen parents for someone to be a NBC, and even more dishonest to pretend that WKA (in the 1890s) did not go beyond M v H.
You cannot cherry-pick a single phrase from entire paragraphs and use that as your basis, when the rest of the paragraph contradicts your point.
The full WKA decision can be found here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html