United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Background:

Wong Kim Ark was born around 1873 in San Francisco, to Chinese immigrant parents, who ran a mercantile story in Chinatown. At the time of his birth, his parents were subjects to the Emperor of China, but had a permanent home and residence in the United States. Growing up, among rising anti-Chinese sentiments, Wong Kim Ark mostly worked as a cook at various restaurants in the area. Many Americans feared Chinese immigrants would increase job competition. It was often claimed that Chinese workers were taking jobs in gold mines, factories, and on the Transcontinental Railroad. Employers often hired Chinese immigrants willing to work to lower wages, leading to the common claim, immigrants lowered pay for everyone else. This all fueled anti-Chinese sentiment throughout the late 1800’s.

The Case:

Like many Chinese immigrants in this era, Wong Kim Ark periodically traveled back to China to visit family. In previous trips he was always allowed reentry due to being a U.S. citizen. Upon his return to the United States from a temporary trip to China, in August 1895, aboard the steamship SS Coptic, he was denied reentry by the local Collector of Customs, John H. Wise. The customs official detained Wong, arguing that because his parents were subjects of the Emperor of China and ineligible for U.S. naturalization, Wong was also a foreign subject rather than a citizen of the United States, despite being born in California. There was no judicial order to take these actions, only the pretense of the Collector of Customs that Wong was not a U.S. citizen.

Debates From Each Side:

The U.S., represented by Solicitor General Holmes Conrad, disregarded that Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, California, within the United States, and therefore was a citizen under the law. It was argued, due to the mother and father of Wong being Chinese and subjects of the Emperor of China, Wong was therefore also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China. Wong also did not own any land, which it was claimed made him unable to be an American Citizen. They then stated Wong could not own land because he was not an American Citizen. It was claimed these factors made Wong ineligible for American citizenship.

Representing Wong was Thomas D. Riordan, along with Maxwell Evarts and J. Hubley Ashton. They argued, Wong was born in the U.S. and therefore, regardless of his parents, was a U.S. citizen. This was backed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, stating: “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”. This reinforced the idea that Wong was a U.S. citizen, due to being born in the U.S., regardless of where his parents were from.

Verdict:

In a 6-to-2 decision on March 28, 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, establishing that children born on U.S. soil to immigrant parents are automatically American citizens. The Court relied on the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. This ruling officially established the foundation for birthright citizenship in the United States, regardless of parents’ foreign nationality. They left this decision “subject to the jurisdiction” meaning this law excluded only diplomats, invading enemy armies, or children born on foreign public vessels. The Constitution makes no distinction in the text based on race being a factor in a person's ability to naturalize. Denying Wong citizenship would invalidate the citizenship of millions of children born in the U.S. whose parents were born in Europe before coming to the U.S.

Legacy:

This landmark Supreme Court case led to the clear interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause in the U.S. Constitution clarifying that people born in the United States are generally U.S. citizens, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. This therefore led to the rejection of the idea that American citizenship depends on ancestry. The precedent this case established, was however, left subject to the jurisdiction, allowing this law to exclude diplomats, invading enemy armies, or children born on foreign public vessels. Being left subject to jurisdiction, does not, however, disregard the principle established that anyone born in the U.S. can not be stripped of their citizenship solely due to race, nationality, or origins of a person's parents. This case became the foundation for many generations of Americans. Even now this case remains relevant, as birthright citizenship remains to be debated both politically and legally. This case, of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, however, affirms that American citizenship belongs to the individual born under the Constitution.