Sorry, but you're making up faleshoods out of your own desperation. Nothing was "pre-conceived." When I first read the Wong Kim Ark decision a couple of years ago, I had the same opinion you did ... until I started noticing how Gray would never directly come out and say Ark was a natural-born citizen. Gray used a bit of your technique to baffle folks with bullishness ... plus a large dose of quantity rather than quality - for his justification of the 14th amendemnt. That's what makes Minor so compelling. Minor didn't go to great lengths to examine how one was declared to be a citizen. The language is simple, direct and to the point: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The Minor decision could have easily accepted the 14th amendment citizenship argument, but they did not. Maybe it was out contempt for congress or out of a sense of conservatism, but the point is, they said what they said and Gray followed the legal precedent that was established. I've given you a point by point explanation of how Gray wrote his decision and right on cue, you're letting your head explode instead of admitting that you're wrong. A rational person does not work as hard as you do to discredit the messenger. The message speaks for itself. WKA and Minor both affirmed that NBC = born in the country to citizen parents. Period. Game. Set. Match.
So, it is possible to read WKA the way I do, and the way most everybody else does. You admit that. The majority way of reading WKA is plausible. And it is the meaning that a person is likely to come away with when they read the decision.
Now, let's look at your second way of reading it, the way that you began to read it when you started having doubts about the way Judge Gray was phrasing things. What was it that made you think that your second way was right and your first way wrong. Was it something you read on the Internet???