We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.I expect you already know this: in English common law, "born on the soil" (jus soli) makes a natural born subject. In Rogers v. Bellei it was stated that US law follows that system, so "born on the soil," (with the usual exceptions) makes a natural born citizen.
Distinguish this from Minor, where it was acknowledged there was doubt, and clearly stated the case was not going to resolve that doubt.
The doubts were regarding the citizenship of children with one or more non-citizen parents...NOT doubts about NBC children who were born in the country to citizen parents.
The Minor case concerned an NBC, Mrs, Minor, whose citizenship was in a class (NBC) about which there was no doubt.
The Minor court did not need to resolve the doubts about children with one or more non-citizen parents because they could not “reach” that issue because it did not apply to Mrs. Minor.
It was the WKA court that resolved the doubts about a sub-class of non-NBC children who met all of the qualifiers listed by the WKA court. The WKA court did not declare WKA to be NBC as the Ankeny court admits (and also Malihi).
You’re utilizing a composition fallacy and misunderstanding of the law. The quote from RvB only refers to the statutory law, not NBC. Be honest enough to acknowledge this.