In order to be "born a citizen" in a foreign country, one must claim citizenship through one's parents, and Specifically the father. Bayard states that place of birth is irrelevant to the issue, because foreign birth is a defacto EXCLUSION of native birth. The only legal principle which recognizes citizenship through birth in a foreign land is Jus Sanguinus, yet for some reason, you continue to cite BAYARD as an "authority" on your side. But you are dishonest, and a fool, and we should expect nothing better of you. Okay. So you recognize Bayard as an authority. That's good. We're making progress.
So can we take it that you now acknowledge that the claim that it takes BOTH birth on US soil AND birth to citizen parents to be a natural born citizen is complete nonsense?
Okay. So you recognize Bayard as an authority. Not really. He wasn't a delegate, he wasn't a member of a ratifying legislature. I merely point out that his commentary does not help your argument at all, and it has never made sense to me why you think this little blurb is worthy of notice. If anything, it hurts your argument because Bayard is asserting that jus soli is immaterial to natural born citizen status.
So can we take it that you now acknowledge that the claim that it takes BOTH birth on US soil AND birth to citizen parents to be a natural born citizen is complete nonsense?
After all this time arguing with me, you still don't grasp my position? After all the times i've posted this excerpt, you are still clueless as to where I stand on this point? 
Un-fricken-believable.
Once again, I direct you to my tagline. "Partus Sequitur Patrem."