Have you ever read ‘Minor v. Happersett’? It doesn’t conclude anything of the sort. I know if you read it on the Internet it must be true because “no one can put anything on the Internet that isn’t true”, however, that is false, too. People pass lies to each other over and over until someday someone like you quotes it as gospel.
The affirmation of judgment in Minor v. Happersett merely states they agree that a one form of natural born citizen is by two parents of a child born in the US, but in no way do they exclude any other natural born citizenship, as stated, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” They did not go into the other means of natural citizenship, so they did not exclude them.
Yes, several times. If you had, you would know I'm absolutely correct.
It doesn’t conclude anything of the sort.
Yes, actually it does and this was affirmed by the quotes from Minor made in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.
The affirmation of judgment in Minor v. Happersett merely states they agree that a one form of natural born citizen is by two parents of a child born in the US, but in no way do they exclude any other natural born citizenship, as stated, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” They did not go into the other means of natural citizenship, so they did not exclude them.
The doubts were not about other ways to become natural-born citizens. The doubts were about other ways to become citizens. In context, they used one exclusive definition of natural-born citizen. And if you read the decision, the next paragraph goes into the only other known ways of becoming a citizen. Again, only one, birth in the country to citizen parents was characterized as natural-born.