You quote only a part of Minor, and only a tiny part of WKA. That is because full quotes prove you wrong, altho you aren’t capable of figuring that out.
But the courts are. They read entire decisions. Which is why every court has agreed with my interpretation for over 100 years...and 50 of 50 states.
You can quote the entirety of WKA. It would NOT change the fact that WKA was ruled "a citizen," only, NOT a natural born citizen.
You can also quote the entirety of Minor v. Happersett. That would NOT change the fact that it contains the ONLY SCOTUS definition of Constitutional natural born citizen, which is:
"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."Obama was born a foreign subject by his and the DNC's own admissions. Such a person is EXACTLY who the Framers intended to exclude from POTUS eligibility to preclude foreign influence.
It's not complicated. Read John Jay's letter. The intent of the Constitution's natural born citizen clause is quite clear. Obama, admittedly born a foreign subject, is NOT eligible.