Sorry, but no one who matters recognizes it as such. We've even had a court specifically say that Minor V. Happersett DOES NOT SAY what you claim it says.
By the way, are you the same SatinDoll who just took me to task for the fact that WKA, after discussing natural-born citzienship for literally dozens of pages, and clearly finding - in the CORE DISCUSSION AND RATIONALE FOR THAT CASE - that almost all persons born on US soil were natural born citizens, didn't specifically include "natural born" in the final paragraph where they restated what they court was asked ("is WKA a citizen?") and said that the answer was "yes?"
So now you come back and insist that a throwaway couple of lines in an earlier case, which had nothing at all to do with the case being decided, and which CERTAINLY was not referenced in more than one place and NOWHERE NEAR the conclusion of the case, is supposedly "precedent?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Once again, you illustrate just how far you and the other Constitution-twisters will go to try and force things that don't say what you claim, into your precious bogus theory.