As US citizens, yes. Native born even. But not natural born. But the only time that "Native born" verses "Natural born" matters is for eligibility to the office of President.
Those children are in the same position as Wong Kim Ark, born of alien parents in the United States. Wong was ruled to be a US citizen under the 14th amendment. But the question of his Natural born status was not at issue, and any discussion in either descent or majority opinions is mere dicta, not bearing on the case, and not having any value as precedent.
This can be seem by reading the following two paragraphs from the decision of the Court, the first shown is the 3rd paragraph of that decision, while the second shown is the last paragraph of the decision.
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 domicile 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: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.'
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 parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile 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.
And veep, of course.
You are making the assumption, without much evidence that I'm aware of, that there is a difference.
No government statute or regulation I'm aware of draws such a distinction, which would create three classes of American citizenship: native-born, natural born and naturalized. In the Wong case I don't believe the justices drew such a distinction. In fact, I believe their implication was that native-born = natural-born. It's been a long time since I read thru the case, but if I remember correctly they used the terms somewhat interchangeably.
I know of no reason to believe native-born and natural born are not the same, leaving us with two groups of citizens, native/natural born and naturalized.