There is consensus among academics that those born on American soil are natural born citizens, or jus soli, regardless of parental citizenship status.
In a 2008 article published by the Michigan Law Review, Lawrence Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that “there is general agreement on the core of [the] meaning [of the Presidential Eligibility Clause]. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a ‘natural born citizen’”. In April 2010, Solum republished the same article as an online draft, in which he clarified his original statement so that it would not be misunderstood as excluding the children of one citizen parent. In a footnote he explained, “based on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a ‘natural born citizen’.” He further extended natural born citizenship to all cases of jus soli as the “conventional view”. Although Solum stated elsewhere that the two-citizen-parents arguments weren’t “crazy”, he believes “the much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural born citizen.”
Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University, has remarked “There’s [sic] some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That’s never been the law.”
Polly Price, Professor of Law at Emory University, has commented “It’s a little confusing, but most scholars think it’s a pretty unusual position for anyone to think the natural born citizen clause would exclude someone born in the U.S.”
Chin concurred with that assessment, stating, “there is agreement that ‘natural born citizens’ include those made citizens by birth under the 14th Amendment.”
Similarly, Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, found “quite persuasive” the reasoning employed by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had concluded “that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”.
Daniel Tokaji, Professor of Law at Ohio State University, agrees the citizenship status of a U.S.-born candidate’s parents is irrelevant.
I’m familiar with those references and the case law, I just refuse to discuss it. I don’t mind that you post it, or even that you post it to me. My silent treatment toward you is not meant to be rude.
I am aware of no scholarly article published in the past 75 years that even challenges that view. And many simply term the question "well-settled."
Plus, the judiciary (3rd, 4th, 7th and 10th Circuits), plus a host of state courts (e.g., Indiana Ct. of Appeals) have affirmed it.
Equally so, it's undisputed that someone born an alien who later naturalizes is not a natural born citizen.
Scholars who describe the meaning of NBC as "unsettled" are focusing on these middle cases like persons born to citizens abroad (G. Romney, McCain, Cruz) or persons born in U.S. territories, commonwealths or protectorates (e.g., the colloquy between Cong. Serrano and Justice Thomas ("we're evading it") about citizens born in Puerto Rico).