[sometime lurker]

Ducking back in for lunch - your reliance on Minor v Happersett is again the result of looking at a snippet without reading the context, and is also a composition fallacy.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [Footnote 6] that "No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [Footnote 7]" and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

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, 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.

So looking further than your snippet, the court instanced one category (to which Virginia Minor belonged) of which there was no doubt. The court then mentioned a category of which there have been doubts, and declared it was not going to address that doubt for the purposes of the case at hand. Note that the court gives only two classes of citzens: born and naturalized.

Note also that later cases, such as WKA did address the issue, and that SCOTUS in Rogers v. Bellei declared

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.

[Rides3]

So looking further than your snippet, the court instanced one category (to which Virginia Minor belonged) of which there was no doubt. The court then mentioned a category of which there have been doubts, and declared it was not going to address that doubt for the purposes of the case at hand.

The relevant passage from Minor v. Happersett:

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, 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.

Not sure how you could possibly misconstrue that, but you have. The doubts are as to whether those born to non-citizen parents are even citizens at all. And SCOTUS was correct in expressing those doubts. Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, very clearly stated, "What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

The children of aliens or foreign parents quite clearly may owe allegiance to a foreign nation/sovereign at birth, as did Obama. The DNC's 'Fight the Smears' website openly admitted such.