I got that from your great summary—i.e.: that he was addressing the anchor baby mess and, as you put it, jus sanguinis citizenship. I would imagine, though, that he used ‘find’ to see if ‘Levine’ was mentioned more than once. I would have...but maybe I’m more vain than Le Grande Fromage of Constitutional scholars. ;)
An excerpt of Elrer
From the article
American Jackpot: The Remaking of America by Birthright Citizenship
"Dr. Edward J. Erler, a political science professor at Cal State San Bernardino, has spoken out against the political malaise and the popular misconception that has blossomed around the continued awarding of citizenship to virtually anyone born in the country. Echoing the sentiments of Eastman, Erler points out that the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to reassure the Congress in 1868 that the citizenship provisions did not cover—nor were they crafted with the intent to grant—citizenship to the children of foreign nationals born in the United States. Specifically, the myriad of Native American tribes were not covered under the citizenship clause because they clearly owed allegiance to their tribes and therefore were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government—a clear indication Erler says that jurisdiction is indeed contingent on exclusive allegiance. And a child’s allegiance must follow that of its parents during its years as a minor."