I put as much stock in Wong Kim Ark as I do in Dred Scott. Both can be viewed as political based decisions having nothing to do with what was actually the law, but opposite in Directions. As with Dred Scott, it is mostly Republicans vs Mostly Democrats, all on their respective sides.
I have read the debates on the 14th amendment, and it is clear that they never intended to make citizens out of transient aliens.
Regarding what others say about the court's opinion, and what they claim was intended by their ruling, A D*** I do not give. If their decision is interpreted to give citizenship to the children of transient aliens, then it is just wrong.
I personally don't think that was their intent, and it matters not at all that other people claim it was.
Any court which can rule Plessy v Ferguson tacitly accepts distinctions and differences between classes of citizenship. They explicitly spelled out that some citizens had higher rights than others, and if Wong is interpreted in that light, it is not contradictory with Plessy.
Plessy is consistent with there being a class of "Citizens" and a higher class of "Natural citizens." I do not think the court reversed itself with Wong. I think people just interpret Wong incorrectly.
There are significant historical differences between the Scott and Wong decisions.
Scott was case law for only nine years. Wong has been precedential for 116 years.
Scott v. Sandford was rendered moot by an outraged majority in Congress which passed legislation, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was vetoed by President Johnson but the veto was overridden by two-thirds majorities in both Houses.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark has been cited more than 1000 times in subsequent court decisions. Even with the Obama/natural born citizen controversy of the last seven years, there has been no serious attempt to overturn U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
Congress, as it did with Scott, can pass legislation to render Wong moot or to clarify its meaning.