The dissent was responding to a claim that was cited in a lower court ruling and was entered as an objection in the appeal to the Supreme Court. The majority punted this issue altogether, but still upheld the precedent set in Minor v. Happersett for how NBC is actually defined. The real complaint in the dissent was that the U.S. could not arbitrarily break the treaty with China that did not allow its subjects to become citizens of the U.S. Gray went around this by building the case of "fundamental rule citizenship by birth" through English common law as setting an international precedent strong enough so that the U.S. Constitution, via the 14th amendment, would trump an international treaty. This ignores of course, that the Constitution places itself and treaties on the same level under the supremacy clause:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
There has never been a case in the past century that used Minor as precedent when defining nbc. And yet WKA has been cited continuously for the past 110 years as precedent for the definition of nbc. I even showed you a case from the 2008 election which employs WKA as legal precedent for defining nbc, and completely ignores Minor.
You have one last chance, cite me a case from the last 100 years, any case, state or federal court, immigration court to SCOTUS, that uses the citizenship dicta language of Minor as precedent for the definition of nbc.