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.
It most certainly did. Under the precedent in Minor, the court was UNABLE to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. I realize that legal dicta is a difficult concept for you to understand, there was only one issue before the court in Minor and the US citizenship of Virginia Minor was never an issue before SCOTUS.
I realize that English is not your first language, but the issue in Minor INCLUDED her citizenship. There's no way around that. Read the case and learn.
The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.
The question was whether the right to vote is a right of citizenship. Such a question cannot be answered unless the issue of citizenship is resolved. Wishing it away doesn't explain why the court in Minor spent half the decision elaborating over her citizenship ... and why it was cited more than 20 years later in WKA - specifically in regard to a definition of natural-born citizenship - and specifically in AFFIRMING that Virginia Minor was a citizen DUE to being born in the country to citizen parents.
There has never been a case in the past century that used Minor as precedent when defining nbc.
We just saw one in Ankeny v. Daniels, except that they contradicted themselves. But that aside. Under their guidance, Rubio is NOT a natural-born citizen. The only way he can be is by arbitrarily explaining away Ankeny's contradiction:
Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.
Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Ankeny claims the question of being born to alien parents was left open, but in the footnote, they said that Minor contemplated scenarios where BOTH parents are aliens. We know that the definition of NBC in Minor was limited to citizen parents. This means they are acknowledging that those persons born to alien parents are NOT NBC. In a monumental faux pas, Ankeny admits this in their own footnote (much like the footnote that admits Wong Kim Ark was not a natural-born citizen). Of course, the same principle that excludes children born to two alien parents ALSO excludes children born to ONE alien, non-immigrant parent.
Further, Ankeny quotes "Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor" ... except that this case does NOT help their argument. The actual majority opinion in that case said, "And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father." Inglis was born in the U.S. but was found to be a natural-born SUBJECT. Under this guidance and the guidance from Minor and a comprehensive reading of WKA, neither Obama NOR Rubio would be natural-born citizens.