In WKA, the state argued WKA was not a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. The original case, heard in California, had argued WKA wasn’t a citizen under the 14th, and the Supreme Court specifically held that he was.
Both the original case and the argument to the Supreme Court claimed the US was ruled by Roman law and the idea that citizenship followed parentage, not birth location. It sought to overturn the basis for citizenship that had been used for over 100 years. That was rejected then, as now.
They did not, however, specifically hold that he was a natural born citizen. Even if they had, they could, in theory, overturn that decision now - the Supreme Court reserves the right to reverse themselves.
It probably is worth noticing that the dissent in WKA complained:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
So there is no settled case that specifically addresses the question of whether the children of foreigners, provided they were born on US soil, qualify under the Constitution to hold the office of POTUS?
Here is the original lower court ruling in Wong Kim Ark:
The Wong opinion starts on page 382.
All of the briefs submitted to the Supreme Court can be found here:
http://librarysource.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/case.htm
BTW, here is Judge Morrows statement on the Minor decision:
“But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question.”