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.
Did you at any point read Trumbull’s quote in context? It seems like you didn’t (although repeatedly urged to do so) because he explained what he meant more fully. The key was those under “complete jurisdiction” was “subject to our laws” as opposed to the “sort of allegiance” owed by even foreign diplomats residing in the US.
Somehow, you never do address the rest of Senator Trumbull’s speech, just the one snippet you took out of context. And then you keep repeating it as if that would cover your ignorance of the context.