And here is where Levin loses me. He props up a straw man and doesn't address the critics' real point.
No one thinks it's just about geography. Most think "subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the laws - an interpretation consistent with other uses of the word in the Constitution - as You points out in the article.
Diplomats and Indians weren't fully subject to our laws since those relationships were governed by treaty. Resident aliens (there was no such thing as an illegal alien at the time) were and still are fully subject to our laws.
This is the distinction that I've never heard Levin address.
How about “intent”...The fact as u state... “ Resident aliens (there was no such thing as an illegal alien at the time)” begs the question of why... “AND” subject to the jurisdiction is there for a reason.... as it is clearly applied to Indians and diplomats with out naming them....common sense would put anchorbabys in that same category of the times and again.... "intent'