Minor says, right in the text, "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.
1) There ARE doubts.
2) Minor does not resolve them.
That's all I said.
Read more carefully.
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.
And then:
"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. "
As you can see, the Court NEVER had any doubts about the class of natural born Citizens.
Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were citizens was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minors did not. It was held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen as the syllabus states in point 2 because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. This was the independent ground that springs forth precedent. (See Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 at 84 (1996)).