In 1884, the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins the Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore not entitled to citizenship. In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.
So there are conflicting Supreme Court rulings on this subject.
The Elk case involved a person born into an Indian tribe. As you will note from my post #59 above, Indian tribes were considered as distinct sovereign nations subsisting within the territory of the United States. So both at the time the Constitution was enacted and through both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, Indians were a recognized exception to the general rule of birth-citizenship.
Children of foreign ministers were also a recognized exception.
Children of foreigners (immigrants) in general, however, were held to be natural born citizens. This was true under pre-14th Amendment case law (e.g., Lynch v. Clarke) and legal commentary and reflected in the debates in the 39th Congress (see post 59). This was made abundantly clear in the Wong Kim Ark case.
So there are conflicting Supreme Court rulings on this subject.
The question in WKA actually centered on a person born of foreign (immigrant) parents. The Elk case did not (it involved one born of Indian parents). Anything statement about the children of immigrant parents found in Elk is dicta and superseded by WKA, the case actually on point.
So there are not conflicting rulings on this point.