Template:Contains Chinese text
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | |
---|---|
Argued March 5, 8, 1897 Decided March 28, 1898 | |
Full case name | United States v. Wong Kim Ark |
Citations | 169 U.S. 649 (more) 18 S. Ct. 456; 42 L. Ed. 890; 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1515 |
Case history | |
Prior | Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California; 1 Fed.Rep. 382 |
Holding | |
"A child born in the United States, of parent[s] of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States." | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Gray, joined by Brewer, Brown, Shiras, White, Peckham |
Dissent | Fuller, joined by Harlan |
McKenna took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XIV |
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about the role of jus soli (birth in the United States) as a factor in determining a person's claim to United States citizenship. The citizenship status of a man born in the United States to Chinese parents was challenged[1] because of a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens,[2] but the Supreme Court ruled that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.[3]
Background
Wong Kim Ark[4] (黃金德; Toisanese: wong11 gim33 'ak3; Cantonese: wong4 gam1 dak1; Mandarin: huáng jīn dé) was born in San Francisco, California, sometime between 1868 and 1873.[5] His father, Wong Si Ping and his mother, Wee Lee[6] were immigrants from Taishan, China and were not United States citizens.
In 1890 Wong's parents returned to live in China. Later that year Wong himself traveled to China and, when he returned to the U.S., authorities granted him entry "upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States."[7] Four years later, Wong, who was employed in San Francisco as a cook,[8] sailed to China on another temporary visit in 1894. When he returned to the U.S. in August 1895, he was detained at the Port of San Francisco by the Collector of Customs, who denied him permission to enter the country, arguing that Wong "although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the state of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China."[1]
In 1882, the Congress of the United States had enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act, limiting entry into the United States of persons of the Chinese race. Chinese immigrants already in the U.S. were allowed to stay, but they were ineligible for naturalization, and if they left the U.S., they needed to obtain approval all over again if they subsequently wished to return. Chinese laborers and miners were specifically barred from coming (or returning) to the U.S. under the terms of the law.[2] However, the "citizenship clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, states the following concerning citizenship: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.[9] A federal district court sided with Wong, declared him to be a citizen,[10][11] and ordered him to be released from custody by immigration officials,[12] but the government appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court considered the key question in Wong Kim Ark's case to be "whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States"[13] via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Opinion of the Court
In a 6–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had indeed acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."[14]
The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law,[15] which had included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.[16][17] The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically incorporated these exceptions (plus a fourth — namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[18][19])—and that since none of these exceptions applied to Wong's situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China".[20]
Since Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, the majority held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions."[3][21]
Dissent
Chief Justice Melville Fuller was joined by Justice John Harlan in a dissenting opinion which was "elaborately drawn and, for the most part, may be said to be predicated upon the recognition of the international law doctrine".[22] Fuller argued that the history of U.S. citizenship law had broken with English common law tradition after independence—citing as an example the embracing in the U.S. of the right of expatriation (giving up of one's native citizenship) and the rejection of the contrary British doctrine of perpetual allegiance.[23] The minority argued that the principle of jus sanguinis (that is, the concept of a child inheriting his or her father's citizenship by descent regardless of birthplace) had been more pervasive in U.S. legal history since independence.[24]
Pointing to the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which declared to be citizens "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed", and which was enacted into law only two months before the 14th Amendment was proposed by Congress, the minority argued that "it is not open to reasonable doubt that the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words 'and not subject to any foreign power'".[25] They thus reasoned that the majority opinion exactly contradicted the original intended meaning of the 14th Amendment.
In the view of the minority, excessive reliance on jus soli (birthplace) as the principal determiner of citizenship would lead to an untenable state of affairs in which "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not".[26]
The dissenters acknowledged that other children of foreigners—including former slaves—had, through the years, acquired U.S. citizenship through birth on U.S. soil. But they still saw a difference between those people and U.S.-born individuals of Chinese ancestry, because of (1) strong cultural traditions discouraging Chinese immigrants from assimilating into mainstream American society,[27] (2) Chinese laws of the time which made acquiring a new citizenship or renouncing allegiance to the Chinese emperor a capital crime,[28] and (3) the provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Act making Chinese immigrants already in the United States ineligible for citizenship.[29]
Subsequent developments
As a result of Wong Kim Ark's U.S. citizenship being confirmed by the Supreme Court, three of his four sons were subsequently recognized as U.S. citizens and allowed to come to the United States: Wong Yook Sue (黃郁賜, Toisanese: wong11 yuk3 ti33, Cantonese: wong4 yuk1 tsi3); Wong Yook Thue (黃沃修, Toisanese: wong11 yuk3 sliu33, Cantonese: wong4 yuk1 sau1); and Wong Yook Jim (黃沃沾, Toisanese: wong11 yuk3 zim33, Cantonese: wong4 yuk1 zim1). A fourth son—his eldest, Wong Yoke Fun (黃毓煥, Toisanese: wong11 yuk3 von22, Cantonese: wong4 yuk1 wun6)—was rejected by U.S. officials, who claimed to see discrepancies in the testimony at his immigration hearing and refused to accept Wong Kim Ark's claim that the boy was his son.[30]
Before Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court had held in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) — a case involving an American Indian — that birthplace by itself was not sufficient to grant citizenship.[31] U.S. citizenship law since Wong Kim Ark has acknowledged both citizenship through place of birth (jus soli) and citizenship inherited from parents (jus sanguinis). Wong Kim Ark's case was subsequently cited in two major Supreme Court decisions on citizenship: Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), involving a U.S.-born woman (Marie Elg) who was alleged to have lost her U.S. citizenship when her Swedish immigrant parents (naturalized U.S. citizens) took her back to Sweden with them when she was a baby; and Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), involving a naturalized U.S. citizen who subsequently moved to Israel and was alleged to have lost his U.S. citizenship after voting in an Israeli election.
Wong Kim Ark was also cited in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), a Supreme Court decision which struck down a Texas state law that had sought to deny public education to undocumented alien children (i.e., children born abroad who had come to the United States illegally along with their parents—not children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents). The court's majority opinion in Plyler said that, according to the Wong court, the 14th Amendment's phrases "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "within its jurisdiction" were essentially equivalent and that both referred primarily to physical presence.[32] It held that illegal immigrants residing in a state are "within the jurisdiction" of that state[33][34] and added that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."[35]
Criticisms of Wong Kim Ark and birthright citizenship
Since the 1990s, controversy has arisen in some circles over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship via jus soli to U.S.–born children of illegal immigrants. This has been controversially dubbed the "anchor baby" situation by some media correspondents and advocacy groups.[36]
John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University, has argued that Wong Kim Ark does not entitle U.S.–born children of illegal immigrants to gain automatic citizenship, because being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States requires a status of "full and complete jurisdiction" that does not apply to aliens who are in the country illegally.[37] Eastman further argues that the Wong Kim Ark decision was fundamentally flawed in the way it dealt with the concept of jurisdiction.[38] A similar analysis of the jurisdiction question has been proposed by Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith of Yale University.[39][40] Others refer to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which followed Wong Kim Ark and clearly assumes that those affected were not previously legal citizens.
In response to fears that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants could serve as links to permit legal residency and eventual citizenship for family members who would otherwise be ineligible to remain in the country, bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have challenged the conventional interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and have sought to actively and explicitly deny citizenship at birth to U.S.-born children of foreign visitors or illegal aliens. As one example among many, the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009"[41] — introduced as H.R. 1868 in the 111th Congress by Republican Georgia Representative Nathan Deal — would have excluded U.S.–born children of illegal immigrants from being considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for purposes of the citizenship clause. Proposals have also been made, unsuccessfully, to amend the Constitution to override the 14th Amendment's language and deny citizenship to such children — such as S.J.Res. 6, introduced in the 111th Congress by Republican Louisiana Senator David Vitter.[42] H.R. 1868 and S.J.Res. 6 failed to reach the floor of either house of Congress and died when the 111th Congress adjourned on December 22, 2010. As of the end of 2010, no other proposal of this type has ever been enacted into law or ratified as an amendment to the Constitution.
See also
- United States nationality law
- Birthright citizenship in the United States
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 169
References
- ^ a b U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 650 (1898).
- ^ a b Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), ourdocuments.gov.
- ^ a b U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 699 (1898).
- ^ English transcriptions of the names of Chinese immigrants to the United States were often inconsistent. Although most documents about Wong Kim Ark write his name as "Wong Kim Ark"—and this is the spelling Wong himself used—he is also referred to in various documents as "Wong Kim Ock" or "Wong Gin Ock". Some discrepancies also exist in the way his sons' names were written in English.
- ^ There are discrepancies regarding Wong Kim Ark's birthdate. Although the court documents regarding his claim to U.S. citizenship say he was born in 1873, an affidavit signed by Wong in November 1894 (before his fateful trip to China) said he was 23. In testimony given at a 1910 immigration hearing for his eldest son (Wong Yoke Fun), Wong Kim Ark gave his birthdate as "T.C. 10, 9th month, 7th day" (a Chinese imperial calendar date said in the transcript of the testimony to correspond to October 20, 1871). In a 1931 immigration document, however, Wong said his birthdate was a year earlier ("T.C.9-9-7"; October 1, 1870). In testimony at immigration hearings for his second son (Wong Yook Sue) and his third son (Wong Yook Thue), he said he was 56 (in March 1925) and 57 (in July 1926), respectively; these last statements would suggest that Wong believed he had been born in 1868.
- ^ Wong Kim Ark's parents are named in the 1895 habeas corpus petition filed in his behalf after his claim to U.S. citizenship was initially rejected. According to testimony given at a 1910 immigration hearing for his eldest son (Wong Yoke Fun), Wong Kim Ark's father died in 1890, and his mother died in 1901 or 1902—both in China.
- ^ McClain, Emlin (1900). A Selection of Cases on Constitutional Law. Little, Brown & Co. p. 965. Retrieved 2011-07-02.
- ^ "The Progeny of Citizen Wong", SF Weekly, November 4, 1998 — an article about a great-granddaughter of Wong Kim Ark (a granddaughter of his son Wong Yook Jim).
- ^ Stimson, Frederic Jesup (2004). The Law of the Federal and State Constitutions of the United States. The Lawbook Exchange. p. 76. Retrieved 2011-07-02.
- ^ In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. 382 (N.D.Cal. 1896) (""From the law as announced and the facts as stipulated, I am of opinion [sic] that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment. He has not forfeited his right to return to this country. His detention, therefore, is illegal. He should be discharged, and it is so ordered.").
- ^ Woodworth, Marshall B. (1898). "Who Are Citizens of the United States? Wong Kim Ark Case". American Law Review. 32. Review Pub. Co.: 556.
From this refusal to permit him to land, a writ of habeas corpus was sued out in the United States District Court .... [T]hat court discharged Wong Kim Ark on the ground that he was a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth in this country, and that the Chinese Exclusion Acts were therefore inapplicable to him.
- ^ Order of the District Court of the United States, Northern District of California, "In the Matter of Wong Kim Ark", January 3, 1896, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.
- ^ U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 653 (1898).
- ^ "Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of International Law". The American Journal of International Law. 8: 672.
- ^ U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 654 (1898).
- ^ Woodworth, Marshall B. (1898). "Who Are Citizens of the United States? Wong Kim Ark Case". American Law Review. 32. Review Pub. Co.: 559.
- ^ "Citizen". Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. p. 490.
- ^ U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 681 (1898).
- ^ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). American Indians were granted U.S. citizenship by Congress, in 1924, via the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
- ^ U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 650 (1898).
- ^ "Chinese". Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. p. 482.
- ^ Woodworth, Marshall B. (1898). "Who Are Citizens of the United States? Wong Kim Ark Case". American Law Review. 32. Review Pub. Co.: 561.
- ^ U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 713 (1898).
- ^ U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 709 (1898).
- ^ U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 721 (1898).
- ^ U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 715 (1898).
- ^ U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 731 (1898).
- ^ U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 725, note 2 (1898).
- ^ U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 726 (1898).
- ^ The immigration files for three of Wong Kim Ark's four sons are available for public viewing at the Pacific Region office of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration in San Bruno, California. A copy of Wong Kim Ark's immigration file can also be seen at the same office (the original file is locked away for safekeeping). As of late 2005, the immigration file for Wong Yook Sue was not available for viewing at the San Bruno National Archives office, but could potentially be seen by filing a Freedom of Information Act request with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
- ^ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).
- ^ Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 (note 10) (1982) ("Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark ... detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term 'jurisdiction' was used. He further noted that it was 'impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ... as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" ...; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."'").
- ^ Dunklee, Dennis R.; Shoop, Robert J. (2006). The Principal's Quick-Reference Guide to School Law. Corwin Press. p. 241.
- ^ Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 (1982) ("In [the Texas government's] view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not 'within the jurisdiction' of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase 'within its jurisdiction'.").
- ^ Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 (note 10) (1982).
- ^ "'Border Baby' boom strains S. Texas", Houston Chronicle, September 24, 2006: "Immigration-control advocates regard the U.S.-born infants as 'anchor babies' because they give their undocumented parents and relatives a way to petition for citizenship."
- ^ Eastman, John C. (March 30, 2006). "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship". Legal Memorandum No. 18. Washington D.C.: Heritage Foundation: 3. Retrieved 2011-07-02.
- ^ Eastman, John C. (March 30, 2006). "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship". Legal Memorandum No. 18. Washington D.C.: Heritage Foundation: 4. Retrieved 2011-07-02.
Justice Gray simply failed to appreciate what he seemed to have understood in Elk [v. Wilkins], namely, that there is a difference between territorial jurisdiction, on the one hand, and the more complete, allegiance-obliging jurisdiction that the Fourteenth Amendment codified, on the other.
- ^ "Indians and Invaders: The Citizenship Clause and Illegal Aliens" (PDF). University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 10 (3): 509. March 2008.
The Court has not revisited Wong Kim Ark, but Schuck and Smith offer a reading of the Citizenship Clause that connects the exclusions to birthright citizenship with a principle of reciprocal consent or allegiance.
- ^ "Rogers M. Smith Named to Endowed Chair at Yale", Yale News, March 24, 1999.
- ^ Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009, H.R. 1868 (111th Congress).
- ^ S. J. Res. 6, thomas.loc.gov, January 16, 2009, retrieved 2009-02-27
External links
Works related to United States v. Wong Kim Ark at Wikisource