United States vs. Wong Kim Ark
United States vs. Wong Kim Ark was a pivotal Supreme Court case decided in 1898 that established the principle of birthright citizenship in the United States. The case arose when Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was denied re-entry into the U.S. after traveling to China. The central legal question focused on the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically whether Wong, as a child born in the U.S., was a citizen despite his parents' Chinese nationality.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in a 6–2 decision that Wong was indeed a U.S. citizen, affirming that citizenship is conferred by the location of birth—a principle known as jus soli. This decision was significant as it underscored the United States' commitment to the idea that anyone born on American soil is entitled to citizenship, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Although the ruling did not immediately improve the circumstances for Chinese immigrants facing widespread discrimination, it laid the groundwork for future discussions about citizenship and immigration rights. As contemporary debates around immigration continue to evoke similar themes of belonging and legal status, the Wong case remains relevant in discussions about the rights of children born to immigrant parents today.
United States vs. Wong Kim Ark
United States vs. Wong Kim Ark was a landmark 1898 decision by the US Supreme Court that sealed America’s commitment to birthright citizenship. Wong Kim Ark was born to Chinese parents after they had immigrated to San Francisco, giving him US citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “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.” However, when Wong returned to San Francisco after a trip to China, he was denied re-entrance. At the time, American sentiment was strongly opposed to Chinese immigration, and Chinese prejudice and discrimination were prevalent. Nonetheless, the decision in Wong’s favor attracted little attention at the time. In the 2020s, anti-immigrant sentiment has resurfaced in the United States, bringing to light the importance of the Wong case.
Background
Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 at 751 Sacramento Street, San Francisco, California, the location of his parents’ business in Chinatown. His father, Wong Si Ping, and his mother, Lee Wee, had emigrated from China to join the thousands of other Chinese immigrants residing in California. However, the US economy was poor and Chinese discrimination was rampant, so in 1882, Wong returned with his parents to their previous home in Taishan, Guangdong, China. He remained in China until his teenage years when he moved back to the United States. In 1889, Wong returned to San Francisco and subsequently found work as a cook.
Wong visited Taishan in 1890. While there, he married Yee Shee, a woman from a nearby village. After returning to the United States, Yee gave birth to their first son. On his arrival in San Francisco, Wong presented the required documents, which included a letter from a White man testifying that Wong was, in fact, born in the United States. However, under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Wong was not permitted to bring his wife with him into the country. In 1894, he again returned to China to visit his wife and family. However, when he attempted to re-enter San Francisco, he was denied admission despite having the required documents.
Over the next several months, Wong lived on different ships in the San Francisco Bay. At the same time, opponents of Chinese immigration were looking for a test case to take to court and Wong fit the bill. The Chinese Exclusion Act already denied Chinese immigrants any avenue to citizenship. Now, those opposed to granting citizenship to Chinese persons wanted to push the courts to deny citizenship to children born to Chinese immigrants in the United States.
At issue was the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment and the legal concepts of jus soli and jus sanguinis. Under the principle of jus soli, citizenship is determined based on the location of birth. Thus, being born in the United States automatically granted a child citizenship. At the time, an exception was made for Native Americans, who the courts determined were not under US jurisdiction and therefore not born as US citizens. According to the principle of jus sanguinis, a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of their parents. If born to Chinese parents, the child inherits their citizenship.
Overview
Wong contested his denial of entry, and with the help of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, his case was brought before a federal district court. The arguments were centered on whether children born to immigrant parents should be bound by allegiance to the United States if they were born there or the country in which their parents were born. On January 3, 1896, District Judge William W. Morrow, relying on previous cases such as Look Tin Sing, ruled that precedent determined that citizenship was set by birth in the United States, not the parents’ citizenship, and declared Wong a US citizen.
The US government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on March 5, 1897. Wong was represented by Maxwell Evarts, former US assistant attorney general J. Hubley Aston, and Thomas D. Riodan. The government’s argument was presented by Solicitor General Holmes Conrad. The case was again presented as a decision between jus solis and jus sanguinis. In a 6–2 decision on March 28, 1898, the Court ruled in favor of Wong, thus affirming the US’s commitment to birthright citizenship.
The decision by the US Supreme Court in favor of Wong received little attention at the time. The Supreme Court stood on precedent and thus did not change its treatment of children born on US soil to Chinese immigrants. These continued to be considered, by birth, US citizens. The decision did not materially improve the lives of Chinese individuals in the United States. It was not until 1943 that the United States passed the Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act, which lifted immigration restrictions on Chinese immigration. This was followed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which ended an immigration policy based on race.
The Wong case was challenged several times in the following decades, but the challenges were summarily dismissed. In the 2020s, the significance of the United States vs. Wong Kim Ark came into play as anti-immigration sentiment increased and was perpetuated by the 2020 presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Children born to illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico and Central America, were derogatorily referred to as “anchor babies.” The argument was that the children of immigrants in the country illegally should not secure the rights and liberties of US citizenship because their parent or parents were in the country without being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Despite promises from conservative politicians to the contrary, the US court system remained committed to birthright citizenship.
Bibliography
Barbash, Fred. “Birthright Citizenship: A Trump-Inspired History Lesson on the 14th Amendment.” The Washington Post, 30 Oct. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/history/2018/10/30/birthright-citizenship-trump-inspired-history-lesson-th-amendment/. 5 June 2023.
Epps, Gary. “The Citizenship Clause: A ‘Legislative History.’” American University Law Review, 2010, vol. 60, no. 2, p. 2, digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol60/iss2/2/. Accessed 5 June 2023.
United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890, No. 132 (1898), www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649. Accessed 5 June 2023.
“United States v. Wong Kim Ark.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell University, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/united‗states‗v.‗wong‗kim‗ark. Accessed 5 June 2023.
“United States v. Wong Kim Ark” [Video]. PBS, www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/chinese-exclusion-act-united-states-v-wong-kim-ark/. Accessed 5 June 2023.