IMHO, any interpretation of it is 'Wong'......period.
The fallacy of Wong Kim Ark was that the court allowed itself to skip over the requirement of denizen-ship, the place between an alien resident and naturalized citizen.
To become a denizen, an alien resident had to renounce their allegiance to their home country and take an Oath they intended to become naturalized citizens. This is what started the 'residency clock' to meet the requirement for Naturalization.
Now, WE may operate under Western law, but his parents were from China and, according to their law, had no ability to renounce the hold their Emperor had over them. This means Wong Kim Ark was born a subject of the Emperor of China, as the ONLY way he could have been a natural born citizen was if his father was already considered a denizen.
Between alien friends, who are temporary subjects, and subjects naturalized or natural born, a species of subjects intermediate is known to the law of England. They are distinguished by the appellation of denizens. The power of denization is a high and incommunicable portionu of the prerogative royal. A denizen is received into the nation, like a person who is dropt from the clouds. He may acquire rights, but he cannot inherit them, not even from his own parent: he may transmit rights to his children, who are born after his letters patent of denization; but not to those who were born before.
James Wilson , Collected Works, vol. 2
-------
The court skipped over a Constituional rule that had been established for one hundred years....ENTIRELY, and designated Wong Kim Ark the country's first 'anchor baby'.
Firstly, their ruling in Plessy v Ferguson undeniably divides people into different classes of citizenship with Homer Plessy being regarded by the court as a second class citizen.
Secondly, Had it been their intention to regard Wong Kim Ark as the exact same class of citizenship as a "natural born citizen" they would have explicitly stated so in their ruling. They did not.
Ergo, it is quite plausible to regard the court as having Acknowledged Wong Kim Ark is a citizen through the action of the 14th amendment, but is NOT a "natural born citizen" for the purpose of Presidential eligibility.
This interpretation is thoroughly consistent with the Court's Previous actions and their Wong Kim Ark ruling. The court even states in the ruling that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment.
A child born in the United States, of parents 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, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, ...
It doesn't get plainer than that.
I would add further that we already know from Minor v Happersett that the Waite court regarded 14th amendment citizenship as distinctly different from Natural citizenship.