I've said this before, to no avail, but you seem like a generally smart guy, so maybe you'll get it: have you ever heard of necessary vs. sufficient conditions? Here are a couple of definitions:
A sufficient condition for some state of affairs S is a condition that, if satisfied, guarantees that S obtains.Now, read the "definition" in Minor: "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also." In other words, being born in a country of citizen parents is undoubtedly enough to make one a citizen at birth--it's a sufficient condition. But for your argument to be valid, you have to construe it as a necessary condition, and the language doesn't support that. For that they would have had to write something like "it was never doubted that only children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also"--a very simple change, and yet wording they didn't choose. Why is that, if the distinction is so important?
A necessary condition for some state of affairs S is a condition that must be satisfied in order for S to obtain.
To use an example I've used before: it's as though I said "there is no doubt that all the people I work with are invited to my party." Does that mean nobody else can come? No, of course not.
Legal term definitions use the closed world assumption.