"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"namely: explicitly; specifically
The question asked and answered.
The question before the court was not only if Wong Kim Ark should have citizenship because of native-birth. There were OTHER NAMED AGREED UPON FACTORS and FACTS on which the ruling was explicitly based.
SCOTUS ruled that Wong Kim Ark's PARENTS' status was a determining factor in deciding that Wong Kim Ark met the 14th Amendment's required "subject to the jurisdiction" status.
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Gray was presented with the perfect opportunity to define US natural born citizen as native-born without regard to parents' status. But after all the examination, citations, and quotes, Gray gave Wong's citizenship no such qualification.
As Obama's father was NOT permanently domiciled in the U.S. in 1961, or ever, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark does NOT apply to Obama.
Obama, legally, isn't even a U.S. citizen.
That's going too far. If he was born in the United States, he gets 14th amendment citizenship. (Not the same thing as "natural citizenship because it was created by an act of Congress.)
Only if he was born outside of the United States would he not be an American citizen at all. There is a little evidence that indicates he might have been born in Canada, but mostly it is just circumstantial, nothing conclusive.