Numbers of Freepers have come up with enough stuff to suggest the issue has never been settled. The fact the FOUNDERS exempted those who'd been simply living in America, whether they were born here or not, suggests their concern was with where the hopeful office holder was born (or the jurisdiction thereof).
Then, it turned out America was a lot more difficult to get populated and developed than the Founders had imagined. If it hadn't have been for the Great Famines of the 1800s we'd probably still be pushing in the lower tens of millions rather than up there over 300 million people.
Many of the arguments I have seen claiming only ‘jus soli’ is necessary to be eligible for POTUSA are referenced to the words in the Constitution that require 14 years of residency in the USA. This clipped use of words is misleading, intentional or not,. A close and accurate reading of the requirement for POTUSA is very clearly structured as I would expect the learned Founders intended. The first and primary requirement is that the POTUSA be a ‘natural born citizen. We can argue and debate the substance of such. Then the requirement follows up by stating this ‘natural born person’ must be 35 years of age. Then to restrict eligibility further the Founders added a requirement that such a person eligible by the first two requirements must also be a person who has had 14 years of residence in the USA. I believe the Founders intentionally structured the requirement for POTUSA to eliminate time of residency as a lone requirement and yet preserve their concern for having a substantial interest for the Nation.