In addition, dicta canNOT be used as precedent in a subsequent case as a basis of the court's ruling and holding. Minor has not been used as precedent for any case in defining or ruling that a person is a nbc since WKA, Yet WKA has so been employed in thousands of cases, from immigration court to SCOTUS regarding whether an individual is a nbc. Are you too dense to understand why WKA is cited for the definition of nbc and Minor is as you put in a previous post “ignored.” And you couldn't figure out why Minor is ignored? I don't know how many examples or times I need to repeat it, all of Minor's language regarding citizenship is dicta and has not nor ever will be used as legal precedent to show a person to be or not to be a nbc.
Sorry, but the word you are looking for is "necessary" not relevant, as defined here:
A remark, statement or observation of a judge that is not a necessary part of the legal reasoning needed to reach the decision in a case.
link
Further, the Supreme Court itself says that dicta can be used if it is seen as persuasive.
Putting aside dicta, which may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but which are not controlling, ...Minor has not been used as precedent for any case in defining or ruling that a person is a nbc since WKA, Yet WKA has so been employed in thousands of cases, from immigration court to SCOTUS regarding whether an individual is a nbc.
link
Sorry, but these cases are NOT about NBC. They may be about "native-born" citizenship or Gray's "citizenship by birth," but they are NOT about "natural-born citizenship" which Wong specifically defined (in following Minor) as "all children born inthe country to parents who were its citizens."