Apparently we never knew you either. I practiced law for several decades and briefed a lot of cases. How about you? This is not "wishin and hopin" or philosophy class. Rather we are talking constitutional law. In legal terms, your argument about Wong not running for POTUS may be stated as follows. SCOTUS rules only on genuine cases in controversy and otherwise has no jurisdiction to rule (not that the modern SCOTUS might be phased by mere rules when they might have an opportunity to further destroy our civilization). Wong was not running for POTUS. SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to rule on a case not before it. Further, no party to Wong asked the SCOTUS to rule on POTUS eligibility. Further, no party to the case had standing (another jurisdictional prerequisite) to raise such a question on the facts in Wong. I know you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to believe otherwise but what you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to believe is no substitute for the actual constitution. That is what the courts have been consistently HOLDING and not just in irrelevant dicta.
Not to be indelicate, but Wong was also handed down during a time when the USA was plagued by a national hysteria over what was called "The Yellow Peril" in which the alarmists of that time (perhaps a SCOTUS justice or two) were convinced that the yellow hordes of Asia and particularly of China would swamp America via mass immigration. It seems embarrassing to recall that mindset as with the WW II internment of Japanese Americans but we cannot change history. We can only make history in futuro and try to avoid previous mistakes.
Missing the point still. The fact that the explanation for why Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen is dicta does not mean it is irrelevant. It’s not binding, we all get that. But even a binding decision can be reversed by a later court. That’s not the point.
The point is that the logic expressed in that dicta is clear, that the Supreme Court did once look at this issue, and that another court looking at the same facts is going to end up the same way. That’s why it’s not irrelevant. Not because it’s binding, but because it examines the same history.
In fact it’s you who REALLY, REALLY wants that case to go away, because it doesn’t bode well for birthers. But if this ever gets to the Supreme Court birthers better be braced for disappointment.