The other extreme is another red herring, often put forth by trolls to confuse the issue. No one needs to have natural born citizen parents in order to be natural born citizens themselves. Those parents must be citizens, period, and naturalized before the time of the child's birth will suffice.
Minor v. Happersett states that children born of the soil of citizen parents are without a doubt natural born, and anyone else is in doubt. Any other definition is speculation without precedent, or deliberate twisting of legal decisions such as claiming that Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a natural born citizen, when he clearly was not. He was deemed a citizen, period, with no additional qualifiers.
Either was is, by the natural act of being born, granted U.S. citizenship. Or one gets U.S. citizenship via a “naturalization” process.
There are, we can all hopefully agree, only TWO ways of attaining U.S. citizenship; either one is born and via that natural process, becomes a U.S. citizen; or one must be “naturalized” as a U.S. citizen.
To me it makes perfect sense that those who were U.S. citizens at birth are “natural born citizens” while those that attain citizenship via “naturalization” are “naturalized citizens”.
That was my view of the law long before 0bambam made the scene, and I have seen no legal reasoning that would oblige me to change my view of the law.