In case you missed our previous conversation: you should be aware that Rides3 is of the opinion that all the agreed-upon facts in WKA were in fact requiements or limitations on the decision. Rides3 thinks, for example, that the inclusion of "whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent" in the restatement of the question means that WKA only applies to Chinese people, not people from anyplace else.
Really?
That's... extraordinary.
The precedent in a case includes all of its core reasoning, all of the rationale, backed by analysis and authority used to reach the decision.
It does NOT, contrary to the claims of Constitution-twisters, include side comments unbacked by any authority, and completely irrelevant to the outcome of the case... such as any side comment made by the Minor court regarding the children of non-citizen parents - since Virginia Minor didn't fit into that category and no comment by the Court on the status of children of alien parentage was even relevant to her, or her case.
But when the argument has been made for a child of Chinese parents, it applies equally to a child of Norwegian or Liberian or Russian or Kenyan parents, unless there's some good reason for it not to. Because the two situations are identical in their legal situation and implications.
Of course I know that YOU know that. I'm just repeating it for the benefit of anyone who may have fallen into the Constitution-twisters' web.