Oh... and once again, as your own source notes: Greisser’s father was basically a tourist in the US, or on a temporary trade mission. The younger Bayard’s position was that the US-born child of a German citizen WHO HAD HIS DOMICILE IN GERMANY was not a US citizen. No Jeff. You don't get to lie about your firmly held position. You have never cut out a niche for "birth tourism." Your theory doesn't ALLOW such deviations from dogma. The Gospel of Natural Born according to JEFF WINSTON is that ANYONE BORN HERE IS A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN."
Once more, you twist and dodge like a snake, but you are nailed like a bug in an Entomology display.
(Jeff is the big stinkbug in the middle.)
There are TWO aspects of this which contradict your long held Dogma.
1. Your BORN HERE theory allows no exceptions and never did. English Law doesn't recognize the "tourism" exception. You've said over and over and over again that anyone BORN HERE is a "natural born citizen." Attempts to show you that you were wrong were met with "EVERY AUTHORITY IN THE KNOWN GALAXY AGREES WITH ME!" You don't get to back away from this position now that it has been shown to be utterly false. You OWN it!
2. Barack Obama, whose legitimacy you CONSTANTLY DEFENDED is one of these children of a "birth tourist" which you are now dishonestly claiming is your new, better informed position.
See this guy? 
Temp Student here for a visit. NOT PERMANENT RESIDENT. DOMICILE IS IN KENYA. But what has Jeffery been doing for years? "OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BECAUSE HE WAS BORN HERE !"
So which is it Jeff? Do you stick by the lies you've been telling for years, or do you go with the New Lie you've cooked up to cover your no longer supportable claim?
Inquiring minds want to Know Jeff. 
No Jeff. You don't get to lie about your firmly held position. You have never cut out a niche for "birth tourism." Your theory doesn't ALLOW such deviations from dogma. The Gospel of Natural Born according to JEFF WINSTON is that ANYONE BORN HERE IS A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN." Your characterization is simply a lie, which of course is nothing new for you.
I have for a long time said there's at least some argument to be made that the children born here of foreign parents temporarily in the country (e.g., tourists) are not or at least should not be US citizens.
I've also said that I think LEGALLY speaking, based on precedent and on the historical meaning of "natural born," the argument is a weak one and might well fail.
But from a POLICY point of view? There's a lot of be said for eliminating birth tourism.
And that's why I said Bayard's position wasn't unreasonable.
From a LEGAL point of view, though, he may not be correct.
A proposition can be good policy, but bad law. Is Obamacare bad policy? Undoubtedly. Is it the law of the land? Also undoubtedly.
So to say "Obamacare is not the law" is simply not true.
Unlike birthers, I distinguish what the law is from what I would like it to be.
But I think you understand my position. We've talked about it before.