No, you didn’t and you still haven’t. You answer that first, and then we’ll move forward.
Instead, it sounds like you’re moving right to snarky. Are you sure you want to go there?
I will repeat my answer for the third time: "Are you trying to argue that because the Court 'only' ruled that Wong Kim Ark was '...at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States,' they had nothing to say about 'natural-born' citizenship? That's a disingenuous argument, at best." (emphasis added)
Why do you think I used the word only and placed quotation marks around it? Why did I quote a passage from Wong Kim Ark that only stated "...citizen of the United States"? That was my answer to your question; you simply did not catch it. The Court addressed a question of citizenship. In the process of addressing that question, they clarified the meaning of "natural-born," which is not defined the Constitution, as noted by Chief Justice Waite and plainly obvious to anyone literate in English.
That is why your question is poorly posed. You're attempting to argue that because Wong Kim Ark was not specifically about "natural-born" citizenship, it has nothing to do with the issue of what "natural-born" means. Now, it is you who has not answered one of my previous questions: if that truly were the case, then why did Justice Gray expend so much effort analyzing English common law to clarify the meaning of "natural-born"? If the phrase were irrelevant, then he shouldn't have felt compelled to address it. The take-home point is that Wong Kim Ark, like Minor before it, contains a clarification on the meaning of "natural-born," and while you are free to dismiss it, you cannot ignore that it exists.
Now, if you please, provide a definition on "natural-born," preferably one supported by SCOTUS jurisprudence.