Elsewhere was explained in Post #237.
Now, I challenged you earlier, because Gray says Minor used common law as an aid in the construction of the citizenship provision of the 14th amendment. Show us the common law that Minor cited and how it was applied to the citizenship provision. Hop to. The heart of your misconception relies on you being able to find the common law citation(s) from the Minor court. Get to it.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, natural-born citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
Wow. That was hard. The court is telling what the common law was.
Now your turn. Go to WKA and tell us about where the court went when it went elsewhere, and what it said, and don’t skip down 50 pages past all the stuff you don’t want to admit to. Hop to it now!