Frankly, I can't understand your position - the law you cite states born of citizen parents, that is the ordinate clause, and the subordinate, or the additional requirement, if you prefer, is that the father must have lived in the country. Had it been written that the person must have been born of a citizen parent; singular, then your contention is correct with the additional requirement of residency in the US of the father, irrespective of the other parent's.
So let's rewrite it to fit your interpretation:
And the children that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States of fathers who have been resident in the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That one parent is a citizen of the United States.
One can argue with the exact wording I present above, but it is exactly what you are asserting. Claiming that the founders intended it to be written that way begs the question - if that was why they meant, why not write it so?