Again, the very MOST you could legitimately say about Bingham is that he is unclear or ambiguous.
By the way, I love how you keep shifting to other points. This, of course, is the typical birther game.
You show what absolute BS point A is, and birthers shift to point B.
Show what absolute BS point B is, and birthers shift to point C.
Show what absolute BS point C is, and birthers shift to point D.
Show what absolute BS point D is, and birthers shift to point E.
You show what absolute BS point E is, and birthers shift back to point A again.
It's all a stupid game.
You've gotten the absolute daylights beaten out of you on the evidence regarding what "natural born citizen" meant among the Founders and Framers, in early America and in the law (Minor and Wong).
So now, having gotten the stuffings kicked out of you everywhere else, you want to try and shift to John Bingham - a man who didn't start talking about natural born citizenship at all until 75 years after the Constitution was written - and pretend that you can make an authoritative case from him.
But you can't, really.
Your entire case with Bingham rests on the assumption that when he said, "not subject to any foreign authority," he included aliens in America in that category. And from the wording, that would seem, on the surface, to be a reasonable assumption.
But NOWHERE does Bingham EVER state that he's referring to anyone other than the traditional exceptions: foreign ambassadors, invading armies, and Indians in tribes.
It is absolutely clear that the discussion in the Senate, at least, was referring ONLY to those people.
And Bingham himself later DROPPED the wording you refer to, substituting instead, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," which clearly meant "subject to the laws of the United States." This made it clear, in the 14th Amendment, that the children of non-citizens born here were US citizens at birth.
Which, BY THE WAY, is what Bingham says "natural born citizens" are - CITIZENS AT BIRTH.
Why did Bingham change the wording? Probably because the original wording gave a false impression that the US-born children of aliens weren't citizens.
I don't know offhand, but I suspect that the House debates also raised the question of children born here of regular aliens. I will have to look and see, but I don't know whether I can do so this week.
In any event, the fact that you're even trying to make your case from Bingham, rather than elsewhere, is a sign of how thoroughly most of your BS has already been debunked.
Again, given Bingham's clear equating "citizens at birth" with "natural born citizens," and given that he repeatedly says essentially everyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen, the MOST you can legitimately claim is that Bingham is unclear or ambiguous.
Meanwhile, you berate me for not including the full context on a single quote, while you excuse yourself for omitting entire quotes, and twisting and misrepresenting most of those you do include.
Here's a Bingham quote you missed:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.”
I'll let you figure out exactly when he said that, and supply the context - if you can.
Bingham puts the lie to your entire argument. You cited him as an authority, but your argument has always been that no authorities support the parent citizenship requirement. (I told you that absolute certainty was going to come back and bite you in the @ss.)
You see, your argument requires that there not be a single deviancy from your orthodoxy. Bingham is a poison pill to your argument. (As are others.)
But the bottom line is you are dishonest, and everyone with whom you argue should be made aware of this.