No, the LAW does not state that, but some court rulings have (rulings that have NOT been affirmed by SCOTUS). Hence, my previous comment that it is not the law but the misapplication of the law that has created the confusion (and all the problems).
That's pretty darn common.
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who is born in the United State of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Sure looks like the law to me.
It is intellectually dishonest to argue "it the law" when "the law" fits you're agenda but then argue it's not the law then "the law" does not fit your agenda.
If there are only two types of citizens; citizen by birth; citizen by statute then yes that Chinese anchor baby is according to you and natural born citizen of the United States of America and eligible to serve as POTUS. However if NBC means what I know it means than no the Chinese anchor baby is not allowed to serve as president. And neither are all the other single parent children I sited in my earlier posts.