Heck. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would've been all over it, too.
But especially Levin. Oh, and folks like Hillsdale College. And folks like the Heritage Foundation. I hear of these folks all the time on the radio. Not one peep about some imagined requirement of citizen parents to be a "natural born citizen."
I just looked up "Constitution" and "Heritage Foundation." Guess what I found?
From here:
Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President. As early as 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." 1 Stat. 104 (1790). The "natural born" terminology was dropped shortly thereafter. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c). But the question remains whether the term "natural born Citizen" used in Article II includes the parliamentary rule of jus sanguinis in addition to the common law principle of jus soli. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of "citizen" in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born–citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship though jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's discussion in Wong Kim Ark, a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.
In any event, he is also on the Advisory Committe to a group called "Americans for Constitutional Citizenship," which advocates, among other things, that children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents should be considered citizens of the U.S. That is in direct contradiction to the original meaning and intent of those who created and passed the 14th Amendment.
He also wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, again advocating for citizenship status for the children born here to those who violated our immigration laws to get here.
He's also on the Advisory Council for a group called "ImmigrationWorks USA" which states, in part, that they want to counter what they call the "restrictionist right." It appears that they are more concerned with finding jobs in the US for foreigners, than for citizens.
Back in 2008, he even wrote an article titled: "Let’s abolish unjust barrier to presidency" (a pdf of the original newspaper article) in which he argues that the "natural Born Citizen" requirement for president is "unfair, if not un-American."
Etc.
The guy is clearly anti-natural Born Citizen Constitutional requirement, and his opinions show it.