No, let us be clear that according to the documentation left behind by the legal experts of the early United States, that "natural born citizen" absolutely DOES REQUIRE a Citizen who is a father.
Being BORN A CITIZEN required a FATHER who was a citizen, or in the process of BECOMING a citizen. You got your big fat @$$ whipped regarding Bayard where you kept going on and on an on about Bayard's contention that being "born a citizen" made one a "natural born citizen" and as *I* told you, there is nothing wrong with Bayard's statement if you postulate that being "born a citizen" required a citizen father.
We find out from Thomas Bayard that this is exactly what his father meant. A Child must have a CITIZEN FATHER to be a citizen. A Child of a German citizen born in Ohio was a GERMAN citizen, not an American citizen. Just as the child of a TRANSIENT KENYAN is a KENYAN citizen, not an American citizen.
They start not by going and reading history, law and the Founding Fathers and early legal experts, with anything like an open mind.
You are the biggest F***** Hypocrite! There is no one out there more intent on IGNORING early legal experts than you. You keep saying CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL wasn't talking about "natural born citizen" when he quotes Vattel on "natives or indigenes", but you never answer the question as to what sort of citizen he WAS talking about.
Chief Justice John Marshall:
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Justice Bushrod Washington:
1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93.You KNOW you don't have a leg to stand on, but here you are still lying about it!
That's not how history works. That's not how competent and honest people process history. Competent and honest people begin by saying, "Let's go see what the Founding Fathers and our experts in the law have had to say.
Yeah, tell me about Honest you freaking pathological liar. It doesn't matter how many times you are shown that better authorities beat your PRETEND authorities, you still ignore the better authorities for your Rump lawyers.
Once again, My two supreme court Justices beat your British Lawyer. 
BOTH THESE GUYS debated the Adoption of the US Constitution! How many Delegates have YOU got?