In fact, it does.
Look at the other agreed-upon facts in the same sentence: born in the US, parents of Chinese descent, subjects of the Emperor of China, and are in the US carrying on business. Are those all requirements, too? Like I said before, does the WKA decision only apply to people of Chinese descent?
It would appear so as Justice Gray specifically made this statement at the conclusion of his ruling:
"the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.Words have meaning.
Because you say so?
It's actually an interesting claim you're making, and not one I've heard before. Courts seem to find precedent in Supreme Court decisions beyond the specific case at hand, even when the conclusion restates the facts of the case. For example, the conclusion of Heller vs. DC reads
we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.Nevertheless, most observers have concluded that the decision had broader reach than just the District, just as lots of courts have concluded that WKA didn't just apply to Chinese people. I hope you get the chance to test your theory in court someday.