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; 71 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 Wong—a man born around 1871 to Chinese parents who were lawfully residing in the United States—was challenged, based on an 1882 law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. Eventually, this issue reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in Wong's favor, deciding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S. subject to U. S. law, and could not be limited in that regard by an act of Congress.
The debate surrounding the Wong Kim Ark case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Although the Supreme Court majority chose to interpret the language of the amendment in a way (consistent with English common law) that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil, the court's dissenting minority believed that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—an interpretation grounded in international law which would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[1]
The parameters of birthright citizenship stated in the Wong Kim Ark decision have never subsequently been "seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts".[2] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.–born children of illegal immigrants, and some legal scholars have argued that the Wong Kim Ark precedent does not apply when alien parents are in the country illegally. Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress either to restrict birthright citizenship by statute, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through a new amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has succeeded.
Background
Wong Kim Ark (黃金德; Taishanese: wong11 gim33 'ak3) was born in San Francisco. Various sources state or imply his year of birth as being 1873,[3] 1871,[4][5] or 1868.[6][7] His father (Wong Si Ping) and mother (Wee Lee) were immigrants from China and were not United States citizens.[8][9]
Wong traveled to China in 1890, 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."[10] Four years later, Wong, who was employed in San Francisco as a cook,[11] 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."[12]
Earlier legal developments
Three earlier developments in United States law would shape the subsequent course of events surrounding Wong Kim Ark: the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (specifically, its Citizenship Clause); the Burlingame Treaty between China and the United States; and the Chinese Exclusion Act.[9]
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, after the Civil War and the accompanying abolition of Negro slavery throughout the United States. The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment—known as the Citizenship Clause—states that: "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."[13] This new provision of the Constitution superseded the United States Supreme Court's 1857 ruling, Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had held that slaves, former slaves, and their descendants were not eligible to be U.S. citizens.[14]
Also in 1868, a treaty (named the Burlingame Treaty after one of the American negotiators) allowed trade and migration between the United States and China. However, it contained a provision stating that "nothing herein contained shall be held to confer naturalization ... upon the subjects of China in the United States."[15][16]
In response to the post-Civil War economic decline and increasing animosity towards Chinese immigrants, Congress enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. This law limited 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.[17]
Habeas corpus petition
Wong Kim Ark challenged the refusal to recognize his birth claim to U.S. citizenship, and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed on his behalf in federal district court.[18][19] The arguments presented before the district court centered around how the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Citizenship Clause should be interpreted in a situation involving a child born in the United States to alien parents: namely, whether it meant "'subject to the laws of the United States,' comprehending, in this expression, the allegiance that aliens owe in a foreign country to obey its laws" (an interpretation based on the common law inherited by the United States from England); or whether it meant "to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States" (an interpretation based on international law which would exclude parents and their children who owed allegiance to another country).[20][21] This question had, up to that time, never been considered by the Supreme Court.[22] However, following a precedent established in two cases previously decided by other federal courts—In re Look Tin Sing[23] and Gee Fook Sing v. U.S.[24]—the district court ruled that subject to the jurisdiction thereof referred to being subject to U.S. law; on this basis, the court sided with Wong Kim Ark, declaring him to be a citizen and ordering him to be released from custody.[18][25][26]
The U.S. government appealed this ruling directly to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the key question in the 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[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" via the Fourteenth Amendment.[8][27]
Opinion of the Court
In a 6–2 decision[18][28] issued on March 28, 1898,[29] 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."[30] The majority opinion was written by Justice Horace Gray, who was joined by Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White, and Rufus W. Peckham.[18]
Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),[31] the court's majority held that the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,[32] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only 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.[33][34][35] The court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions[36] (plus a fourth—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[37][38]). The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed 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".[12] As a result, the majority opinion concluded that Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, via the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, they 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."[39][40]
The Court's opinion in Wong Kim Ark relied extensively on a prior opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall for the Court in the 1812 case of The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon.[41] The Court in Wong Kim Ark stated:[42]
The words 'in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the first sentence of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the congress which proposed the amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange....
The Court quoted extensively from Marshall's 1812 opinion, including Marshall's statement that, "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself."[43] Such limitations include immunity given to foreign diplomats, but no such limitation applied to the case of Wong Kim Ark.
Dissent
Chief Justice Melville Fuller was joined by Justice John Harlan in a dissenting opinion which, in the words of one analyst, was "elaborately drawn and, for the most part, may be said to be predicated upon the recognition of the international law doctrine".[44] 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.[45] 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.[46][47]
Pointing to the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, an act of Congress 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 Fourteenth 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'".[48] 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".[1]
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,[49] (2) Chinese laws of the time which made renouncing allegiance to the Chinese emperor a capital crime,[50] and (3) the provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Act making Chinese immigrants already in the United States ineligible for citizenship.[51] The question for the court's minority was "not whether [Wong Kim Ark] was born in the U.S. or subject to the jurisdiction thereof ... but whether his or her parents have the ability, under U.S. or foreign law, statutory or treaty-based, to become citizens of the U.S. themselves".[52]
Subsequent developments
One analysis of the Wong Kim Ark case, written shortly after the decision in 1898, laid out the two competing theories of jurisdiction in the Citizenship Clause and observed that "[t]he fact that the decision of the court was not unanimous indicates that the question is at least debatable."[18] The same writer also noted, however, that "the error the dissent apparently falls into is that it does not recognize that the United States, as a sovereign power, has the right to adopt any rule of citizenship it may see fit", and concluded that "the decision sets at rest whatever of doubt may have been formerly entertained on the proposition" and "it is difficult to see what valid objection can be raised thereto".[44] Another, opposing analysis of the case (also from 1898) asserts that the Supreme Court's minority had "what appears to be the better view", and that "[t]o put upon the fourteenth amendment the construction urged by the majority of the court is to 'override both treaty and statute'".[53]
As a result of Wong Kim Ark's U.S. citizenship being confirmed by the Supreme Court, three of his four sons (born in China) were subsequently allowed to settle in the United States as citizens: Wong Yook Sue (黃郁賜, wong11 yuk3 ti33);[6][54] Wong Yook Thue (黃沃修, wong11 yuk3 sliu33);[54] and Wong Yook Jim (黃沃沾, wong11 yuk3 zim33).[55] A fourth son—his eldest, Wong Yoke Fun (黃毓煥, wong11 yuk3 von22)—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.[56] At least one of the sons (the youngest, Wong Yook Jim) was still alive in 1998.[11]
Current U.S. citizenship law acknowledges both citizenship through place of birth (jus soli) and citizenship inherited from parents (jus sanguinis).[57] In the years since Wong Kim Ark, the concept of jus soli citizenship, as stated in this case, has "never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and [has] been accepted as dogma by lower courts"; post-1898 citizenship cases "have focused predominantly on questions relating to what extent and in what manner Congress may regulate citizenship outside the principles stated in the Citizenship Clause".[2] Before Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court had held in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), that birthplace by itself was not sufficient to grant citizenship to an American Indian;[58] however, Congress subsequently granted full citizenship to American Indians via the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.[59]
In addition to being cited in numerous Supreme Court cases dealing with citizenship,[60][61][62][63][64][65] the Wong Kim Ark court's understanding of Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction was also invoked in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), a case involving undocumented alien children (i.e., children born abroad who had come to the United States illegally along with their parents).[66] A Texas state law had sought to deny such children a public education, and the Texas government had argued that "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".[67] The Supreme Court's majority, however, rejected this view—finding instead that according to Wong Kim Ark, the Fourteenth Amendment's phrases subject to the jurisdiction thereof and within its jurisdiction were essentially equivalent, and that both referred primarily to physical presence and not to political allegiance;[31] and, accordingly, 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."[68][69]
Criticisms of the case and of birthright citizenship for legal residents
An editorial published in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 30, 1898 expressed concern that the Wong Kim Ark ruling (issued two days previously) "may have a wider effect upon the question of citizenship than the public supposes". It called the reasoning behind the court's majority "a very broad generalization, which, it is to be feared, may apply to Indians as well as Chinese". Though noting that even "if native Indians, like native Chinese and Japanese, are finally endowed with citizenship it does not follow that they can vote", and that "[s]o long as the state can protect its ballot box it is safe from the more unpleasant features of Chinese and Indian citizenship", the editorial suggested that "it may become necessary for other reasons to amend the Federal Constitution and definitely limit citizenship to whites and blacks."[70]
An unsuccessful effort was made in 1942 by the Native Sons of the Golden West to convince the Supreme Court to revisit and overrule the Wong Kim Ark ruling, in a case (Regan v. King) challenging the citizenship status of roughly 2,600 U.S.–born persons of Japanese ancestry. Calling Wong Kim Ark "one of the most injurious and unfortunate decisions" ever handed down by the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs' attorney argued that this new case—involving "the citizenship and the right to citizenship of all peoples and all races who do not fall within the characterization or description of white people"—would give the court "an opportunity to correct itself" and recognize that the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause "excludes the Chinese, the Japanese, Hindus, Hottentots and the islanders of the Pacific". A federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this contention, each citing Wong Kim Ark as a controlling precedent, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.[71][72][73]
Relation of the case to birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants
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. [citation needed] This has been controversially dubbed the "anchor baby" situation by some media correspondents and advocacy groups.[74] Public debate over the issue has resulted in renewed discussion of the Wong Kim Ark decision.[75]
John C. Eastman, a former dean of the Chapman University School of Law, has argued that Wong Kim Ark does not entitle U.S.–born children of illegal immigrants to gain automatic citizenship because, in his opinion, 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.[76] Eastman further argues that the Wong Kim Ark decision was fundamentally flawed in the way it dealt with the concept of jurisdiction,[77] and that the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924—which followed Wong Kim Ark—would not have been necessary if Congress had believed "that the Citizenship Clause confers citizenship merely by accident of birth."[78] A similar analysis of the jurisdiction question has been proposed by Peter H. Schuck and Rogers M. Smith.[79] According to law professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas, even if Wong Kim Ark settled the status of children of legal residents, it did not do so for children of illegal residents; Graglia asserts that the case weighs against automatic birthright for illegal immigrants because the Court denied such citizenship for an analogous group, namely "children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation".[80] Judge Richard Posner has taken a position similar to Graglia's.[80]
In response to public reaction against illegal immigration[81] and 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 Fourteenth Amendment and have sought to actively and explicitly deny citizenship at birth to U.S.-born children of foreign visitors or illegal aliens.[82] As one example among many, the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009"—introduced in the House of Representatives of the 111th Congress as H.R. 1868, by Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia—was a failed attempt to exclude U.S.–born children of illegal immigrants from being considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of the Citizenship Clause.[83] A similar proposal—named the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011"—was introduced in the House as H.R. 140 in the current (112th) Congress on January 5, 2011 by Representative Steve King of Iowa,[84] and in the Senate as S. 723 on April 5, 2011 by Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.[85]
Since an act of Congress challenging birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants might well be ruled an unconstitutional violation of the Citizenship Clause by the courts, proposals have also been made to amend the Constitution so as to override the Fourteenth Amendment's language and deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or foreign visitors. For example, Senator Vitter of Louisiana introduced Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.Res.) 6 in the 111th Congress, but like H.R. 1868, it failed to reach the floor of either house of Congress before the 111th Congress adjourned on December 22, 2010.[86] Vitter reintroduced this same proposed amendment as S.J.Res 2 in the current (112th) Congress on January 25, 2011.[87]
Gallery
-
1894 sworn departure statement
-
Sworn Statement of Witnesses verifying Departure Statement of Wong Kim Ark.gifSworn Statement of Witnesses verifying Departure Statement of Wong Kim Ark.gif
-
An 1894 sworn statement by witnesses certifying the identity of Wong Kim Ark. A photograph of Wong was affixed to the statement.An 1894 sworn statement by witnesses certifying the identity of Wong Kim Ark. A photograph of Wong was affixed to the statement.
-
Wong Kim Ark's signatures
-
Wong Kim Ark sons sigs.pngWong Kim Ark sons sigs.png
-
Signatures of Wong Kim Ark's four sons (Wong Yoke Fun, Wong Yook Sue, Wong Yook Thue, and Wong Yook Jim) on various U.S. immigration documents.Signatures of Wong Kim Ark's four sons (Wong Yoke Fun, Wong Yook Sue, Wong Yook Thue, and Wong Yook Jim) on various U.S. immigration documents.
-
Handwritten letter in Chinese
-
File:A letter written in 1926 to Wong Kim Ark by his eldest son, Wong Yoke Fun, informing him that the youngest son, Wong Yook Jim, is about to sail to the U.S.
See also
- Birthright citizenship in the United States
- Chinese American history
- Judiciary Act of 1891
- List of United States immigration legislation
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 169
- United States nationality law
References
- ^ a b United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 715 (1898).
- ^ a b Glen, Patrick J. (Fall 2007). "Wong Kim Ark and Sentencia que Declara Constitucional la Ley General de Migración 285-04 in Comparative Perspective: Constitutional Interpretation, Jus Soli Principles, and Political Morality". University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. 39 (1): 80. JSTOR 40176768.
- ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 649. "This was a writ of habeas corpus ... in behalf of Wong Kim Ark, who alleged that he ... was born at San Francisco in 1873 ...."
- ^ First page of testimony given by Wong Kim Ark at an immigration hearing for his eldest son, Wong Yoke Fun, on December 6, 1910. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno, California. (Wong Kim Ark gives 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.)
- ^ Affidavit signed by Wong Kim Ark on November 5, 1894. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno, California. (Wong gives his age as 23.)
- ^ a b First page of testimony given by Wong Kim Ark at an immigration hearing for his third son, Wong Yook Thue, on March 20, 1925. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno, California. (Wong Kim Ark gives his age as 56. The immigration board also acknowledges the presence at the hearing of Wong Yook Thue's "prior landed alleged brother Wong Yook Sue".)
- ^ First page of testimony given by Wong Kim Ark at an immigration hearing for his youngest son, Wong Yook Jim, on July 23, 1926. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno, California. (Wong Kim Ark gives his age as 57.)
- ^ a b Glen, Patrick J. (Fall 2007). "Wong Kim Ark and Sentencia que Declara Constitucional la Ley General de Migración 285-04 in Comparative Perspective: Constitutional Interpretation, Jus Soli Principles, and Political Morality". University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. 39 (1): 74. JSTOR 40176768.
- ^ a b Elinson, Elaine; Yogi, Stan (2009). Wherever There's a Fight: How Runaway Slaves, Suffragists, Immigrants, Strikers and Poets Shaped Civil Liberties in California. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books. p. 51. ISBN 978-1-59714-114-7.
- ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 651.
- ^ a b "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). Retrieved July 17, 2011.
- ^ a b Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 650.
- ^ Stimson, Frederic Jesup (2004). The Law of the Federal and State Constitutions of the United States. Clark, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange. p. 76. ISBN 978-1-58477-369-6.
- ^ Schwarz, Frederic D. (February/March 2007). "The Dred Scott Decision". American Heritage. 58 (1). Rockville, MD: American Heritage Publishing. Retrieved August 29, 2011.
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|year=
(help) - ^ Meyler, Bernadette (Spring 2001). "The Gestation of Birthright Citizenship, 1868–1898 States' Rights, the Law of Nations, and Mutual Consent". Georgetown Immigration Law Journal. 15: 521–525.
- ^ Aarim-Heriot, Najia. Chinese Immigrants, African Americans, and Racial Anxiety in the United States, 1848–82. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. pp. 108–112. ISBN 0-252-02775-2.
- ^ "Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)". Our Documents. Retrieved September 5, 2011.
- ^ a b c d e Woodworth, Marshall B. (1898). "Who Are Citizens of the United States? Wong Kim Ark Case". American Law Review. 32. St. Louis: Review Pub. Company: 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.
- ^ In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. 382 (N.D.Cal. 1896).
- ^ Woodworth, Marshall B. (1898). "Who Are Citizens of the United States? Wong Kim Ark Case". American Law Review. 32. St. Louis: Review Pub. Company: 555.
While the question before the Supreme Court was, what constitutes citizenship of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, still the peculiar phraseology of the citizenship clause of that Amendment necessarily involved the further and controlling proposition as to what that clause was declaratory of; whether it was intended to be declaratory of the common-law or of the international doctrine.
- ^ In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. at 386.
- ^ Woodworth, Marshall B. (1896). "Citizenship of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment". American Law Review. 30. St. Louis: Review Pub. Company: 538.
The Supreme Court, singular to say, has never directly passed on the political status of children born in this country of foreign parents.
- ^ In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed. 905 (D.Cal. 1884).
- ^ Gee Fook Sing v. U.S., 49 Fed. 146 (9th Cir. 1892).
- ^ In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. at 392. "The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority.... 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."
- ^ 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. Retrieved July 17, 2011.
- ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 653.
- ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 732. "MR. JUSTICE McKENNA, not having been a member of the court when this case was argued, took no part in the decision."
- ^ "Wong Kim Ark Is a Citizen: Supreme Court Decision in Case of Chinese Born in America". Washington Post. March 29, 1898. p. 11.
- ^ American Society of International Law (1914). "Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of International Law". American Journal of International Law. 8. New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co.: 672.
- ^ a b Kirkland, Brooke (2006). "Limiting the Application of Jus Soli: The Resulting Status of Undocumented Children in the United States". Buffalo Human Rights Law Review. 12: 200.
- ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 654.
- ^ Woodworth, Marshall B. (1898). "Who Are Citizens of the United States? Wong Kim Ark Case". American Law Review. 32. St. Louis: Review Pub. Co.: 559.
- ^ Glen, Patrick J. (Fall 2007). "Wong Kim Ark and Sentencia que Declara Constitucional la Ley General de Migración 285-04 in Comparative Perspective: Constitutional Interpretation, Jus Soli Principles, and Political Morality". University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. 39 (1): 74–76. JSTOR 40176768.
- ^ Bouvier, John (1914). "Citizen". Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Kansas City, MO: Vernon Law Book Company. p. 490.
- ^ Glen, Patrick J. (Fall 2007). "Wong Kim Ark and Sentencia que Declara Constitucional la Ley General de Migración 285-04 in Comparative Perspective: Constitutional Interpretation, Jus Soli Principles, and Political Morality". University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. 39 (1): 76–77. JSTOR 40176768.
- ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 681.
- ^ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).
- ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 699.
- ^ Bouvier, John (1914). "Chinese". Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Kansas City, MO: Vernon Law Book Co. p. 482.
- ^ See The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, 11 U.S. 116 (1812). Available via Justia.
- ^ Randolph, Carman Fitz. "The law and policy of annexation: with special reference to the Philippines, together with observations on the status of Cuba", p. 54 (Longmans, Green & Co. 1906).
- ^ Kim, Hyung-Chan. Asian Americans and the Supreme Court: a documentary history, pp. 213 and 460 (Greenwood Publishing Group 1992).
- ^ a b Woodworth, Marshall B. (1898). "Who Are Citizens of the United States? Wong Kim Ark Case". American Law Review. 32. St. Louis: Review Pub. Co.: 561.
- ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 713.
- ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 709.
- ^ Glen, Patrick J. (Fall 2007). "Wong Kim Ark and Sentencia que Declara Constitucional la Ley General de Migración 285-04 in Comparative Perspective: Constitutional Interpretation, Jus Soli Principles, and Political Morality". University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. 39 (1): 77. JSTOR 40176768.
- ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 721.
- ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 731.
- ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 725 (footnote 2).
- ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 726.
- ^ Glen, Patrick J. (Fall 2007). "Wong Kim Ark and Sentencia que Declara Constitucional la Ley General de Migración 285-04 in Comparative Perspective: Constitutional Interpretation, Jus Soli Principles, and Political Morality". University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. 39 (1): 76–79. JSTOR 40176768.
- ^ Yale Law Journal (1898). "Jetsam and Flotsam: Citizenship of Chinaman Born in United States". Central Law Journal. 46. St. Louis: Central Law Journal Company: 519.
- ^ a b Last page of the transcript of Wong Yook Thue's immigration hearing, showing that he is being admitted to the United States. March 20, 1925. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno, California. (This page also mentions that "another alleged son Wong Yook Seu [sic]" was refused admission to the U.S. in 1924, but was "subsequently landed by the Department on appeal".)
- ^ Last page of the transcript of Wong Yook Jim's immigration hearing, showing that he is being admitted to the United States. July 23, 1926. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno, California.
- ^ "Findings and Decree" denying Wong Yoke Fun's application for admission to the United States. December 27, 1910. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno, California.
- ^ "Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States", U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, 7 FAM 1100 (August 21, 2009), p. 1. Retrieved July 14, 2011.
- ^ Wadley, James B. (Fall 2006). "Indian Citizenship and the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the United States Constitution: An Alternative to the Problems of the Full Faith and Credit and Comity?". Southern Illinois University Law Journal. 31: 47.
- ^ Haas, Theodore (May 1957). "The Legal Aspects of Indian Affairs from 1887 to 1957". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 311. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications: 12–22. JSTOR 1032349.
- ^ Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 660 (1927).
- ^ Morrison et al. v. California, 291 U.S. 82, 85 (1934).
- ^ Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 327, 329 (1939).
- ^ 356 U.S. 129, 138 (1958).
- ^ Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 266 (1967).
- ^ Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830 (1971).
- ^ Ho, James C. (March 2008). "Commentary: Birthright Citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment, and State Authority". University of Richmond Law Review. 42: 973.
- ^ Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 (1982).
- ^ Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. at 211 (footnote 10).
- ^ Dunklee, Dennis R.; Shoop, Robert J. (2006). The Principal's Quick-Reference Guide to School Law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. p. 241. ISBN 978-1-4129-2594-5.
- ^ "Questions of Citizenship". San Francisco Chronicle. March 30, 1898. p. 6.
- ^ "Asks U.S. Japanese Lose Citizenship". New York Times. June 27, 1942. p. 6.
- ^ "Japanese Citizens Win a Court Fight". New York Times. July 3, 1942. p. 7.
- ^ Regan v. King, 49 F. Supp. 222 (N.D.Cal. 1942); 134 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1943); cert. denied, 319 U.S. 753 (1943).
- ^ "'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." Retrieved July 17, 2011.
- ^ Wong, William (April 8, 1998). "The citizenship of Wong Kim Ark". San Francisco Examiner. Retrieved September 10, 2011.
- ^ Eastman, John C. (March 30, 2006). "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship". Legal Memorandum No. 18. Washington D.C.: Heritage Foundation: 3. Retrieved July 2, 2011.
- ^ Eastman, John C. (March 30, 2006). "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship". Legal Memorandum No. 18. Washington D.C.: Heritage Foundation: 4. Retrieved July 2, 2011.
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.
- ^ Eastman, John C. (March 30, 2006). "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship". Legal Memorandum No. 18. Washington D.C.: Heritage Foundation: 6. Retrieved July 14, 2011.
- ^ "Indians and Invaders: The Citizenship Clause and Illegal Aliens" (PDF). University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 10 (3). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania: 509. March 2008. Retrieved July 17, 2011.
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.
- ^ a b Graglia, Lino. "Birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens: an irrational public policy", 14 Texas Review of Law and Politics 1, 10 (2009).
- ^ Kirkland, Brooke (2006). "Limiting the Application of Jus Soli: The Resulting Status of Undocumented Children in the United States". Buffalo Human Rights Law Review. 12: 202.
- ^ Ngai, Mae M. (2007). "Birthright Citizenship and the Alien Citizen". Fordham Law Review. 75: 2524.
- ^ "H.R. 1868—Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 (111th Congress)". THOMAS. April 2, 2009. Retrieved July 17, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link) - ^ "H.R. 140—Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 (112th Congress)". THOMAS. January 5, 2011. Retrieved September 8, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link) - ^ "S.723—Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 (112th Congress)". THOMAS. April 5, 2011. Retrieved September 8, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link) - ^ "S.J.Res. 6—Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to United States citizenship (111th Congress)". THOMAS. January 16, 2009. Retrieved February 27, 2009.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link) - ^ "S.J.Res 2—Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to United States citizenship (112th Congress)". THOMAS. January 25, 2011. Retrieved September 8, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
External links
Works related to United States v. Wong Kim Ark at Wikisource