Reading Minor once again, I find it impossible to believe anyone with a legal background can find the language you keep butchering, to be anything but Legal Dicta. If you have any doubt as to the sole issue in the case and holding in Minor, I direct you to last paragraph of Minor which like all SCOTUS cases contains the holding(s) in the case. It should be obvious to you that based on that last paragraph, that any discussion regarding citizenship is dicta and of zero precedential value.
Are you trying to outdumb yourself?? Yes, we all know what legal dicta is, but it's completely inane to presume any court is going to waste its time writing pages and pages of irrelevant dicta. The dicta in Minor is relevant to the holding. I've shown this in the Wong decision where it specifically mentions Virginia Minor's citizenship as a product of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria. The Minor case has been cited in subsequent decisions in relation to several issues NOT just ONE sole issue as you pretend. It has been quoted in relation to voting rights, privileges and immunities clause, presidential eligibility, natural-born citizenship, etc. NOTHING in the Minor decision has been butchered. I've given several quotes. You've shown none to be butchered or what even leads you to such a faulty conclusion (other than perhaps parroting sometimes lurker who I've thoroughly schooled several times). It's time you start showing some intellectual honesty. Moving goalposts, tapdancing and ignoring incovnenient facts do not serve you well, unless maybe you're auditioning for ABC's Wipeout.