I don't get your post - the holding in WKA was that he was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. But, SCOTUS totally evaded the question of Ark's claim to be a NBC.
The holding was:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent 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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
The question at the beginning of the opinion is:
The question presented by the record is whether 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 ...
Ark, NOT Obama, satisfied the subject clause of the 14th amendment because his parents had permanent residence and domicil in the United States. This is contained in both the question at the beginning and in the holding. It's not irrelevant to the holding. Obama's parents did not have permanent residence and domicil in the United States. When Barack Sr. was told to go back to Kenya, had Obama's mama not divorce him, she and Bari would have been sent back to Kenya along with him.