Minor says:
“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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
My response to your question.
For birthers, who pride themselves on relying on the original intent of the Constitution and laws, to ignore the fact that this case was never intended to decide the definition of who was or wasn’t a natural born citizen belies both their own agenda and their failure to practice reading comprehension. To borrow some words from Chief Justice Melville Fuller’s majority opinion, resort must be had elsewhere to come to a conclusive definition of “natural born citizen”.
I can find at least 30 "elsewheres" and not a one of them require citizen parents UNLESS that person was born overseas! You cannot find ONE to defend your position.
You just shot your own argument in the foot. The only conclusive definition of CITIZENS relies on citizen parents. That class of citizens was exclusively characterized as natural-born. Any definition of citizen that doesn't include birth in the country to citizen parents had doubt, so such definitions are not conclusive. The Minor court didn't have to solve any doubts because Virginia Minor fit its defintion of NBC. Wong Kim Ark didn't try to solve those doubts about natural-born citizenship, but only as to whether Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States.
Also, your reading comprehension isn't too good here. Virginia Minor argued she was a citizen via the 14th amendment, but the court rejected that argument: "in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position." Do you understand?? Women do not need the 14th amendment to become citizens when they are born in the country to citizen parents ... because they fit the characterization of natural-born citizen.
Further, the ELSEWHERE Waite refers to is a verbatim match of the Law of Nations in defining NBC. Compare the language:
Minor: all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens ... These were natives, or natural-born citizens
Law of Nations: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
And one last thing: The Minor decision was written by C.J. Waite, not Fuller.