The "common law" used to define NBC is a verbatim match of law of nations, NOT English common law. That he didn't cite any other cases, just shows that Gray seems to have misconstrued the Minor in terms of its alleged use of common law. If you can't find any actual common law in that decision, then it effectively negates the idea that common law was used in WKA to define NBC. It wasn't.
The rest of you post is therefore moot or simply wrong, such as this last part.
That is what you are doing when YOU ignore what the Wong Kim Ark judges said:
I haven't ignored what WKA judges have said. I have cited several passages from that decision, all of which shows that the case affirms the Minor definition of NBC. The passage you're quoting here was addressed in Post #321. IOW, you've ignored that I've addressed it already ... and this was in a post that was a direct reply to you. Digging it up later won't change the fact that it's still doesn't say what you want it to say.
No, you’ve just been too lazy or scared to prove your theory. Show me some proof. I want to see writers back then in those days of 1875, say that the Minor judges defined natural born citizenship. I want to see court cases that quote Minor for that purpose. I want YOU to explain inconsistencies in your theory.
I want you to explain why only 6 years Minor, Chester Arthur ran for office and nobody hollered Minor Happersett!!! Minor Happersett!!! at him because his father was not a citizen. What, did somebody “scrub” all the libraries??? Oh wait, a story is just now breaking that happened in 1880!!! OMG!!!