That’s why there’s chocolate and vanilla.
I don’t believe the opinion conclusively
determines that Wong Kim Ark’s case, a
case being considered WITHOUT the backdrop
of him as a candidate for US president, was
made by SCOTUS in any manner to comport
with Article II of the Constitution in mind ...
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
Any such POTUS eligibility case today would be a case of first impression. That would open up an entirely new landscape of legal and Constitutional analysis yet untouched.
There are people that still think the world is flat. Just because someone holds a contrary opinion, doesn't mean that both opinions are equally valid.
"I don’t believe the opinion conclusively determines that Wong Kim Ark’s case, a case being considered WITHOUT the backdrop of him as a candidate for US president, was made by SCOTUS in any manner to comport with Article II of the Constitution in mind ..."
And to believe that, you have to ignore the plain wording of the decision itself. Do that if you like, but don't plan on trying to engage people in a debate. It's not a rational position.
You are basically deciding in advance what you want to believe and trying to force evidence to fit that view.