In August 1895, a young kitchen named Wang Kim Arc was about to descend from SS Francisco from China, when US customs officials refused to re -enter it.
He said he was not an American citizen. It does not matter that Mr Wang was born in Chennatown, Chennhat, in San Francisco, not far from the port where he was now being held. Authorities later argued that the 14th amendment for all people born on the US soil did not apply to this, because they and his parents were not subject to the “jurisdiction” of the United States later. Were
Instead of withdrawing, Mr Wang took his case to the courts – and won.
In the case of Mr Wang, the Supreme Court confirmed the constitutional guarantee of automated citizenship for all children born in the United States, a right that has a deep connection to the common law. Since the decision of 1898, this broad understanding of the citizenship of birthright has been the law of land.
Now, the Trump administration wants to return the Wang Kim Arc decision – and the birthright of the birthright more extensively – because it is suffering from immigration.
Back to office on his first day, President Trump signed a Executive Order Announcing that the government will stop treating our parents of our children who are non -documents or are temporarily in the country as US citizens.
This order caused litigation, mostly from the Democratic Attorney General and civil rights groups. Last week, the order was blocked indefinitely. A federal judge called it “clearly unconstitutional”. The Justice Department has already appealed for a order.
The Trump administration is pushing an interpretation of the 1898 decision, and is highlighting the views of a small group of legal scholars like John Eastman, a lawyer who to stop the Congress certificate for the 2020 presidential election. Known to draft the project.
It is unclear whether the Supreme Court, even despite its conservative majority, will be inclined to raise such a case. Nevertheless, the recent measures can be the basis of a long legal war that the critics of the Birthday Right Citizenship will turn away from the long -standing ideology.
“Wang Kim Arc Case” is a fixed law, or at least that can happen, said Amanda Frast, a law professor of law and immigration and citizenship at Virginia University. “” But that doesn’t mean it can’t be restless. “
Mr Wang’s case arose during the same moment of national problems around the immigration.
Her parents were part of a wave of Chinese laborers who arrived in the United States to begin in the mid -1800s in search of economic opportunities. Mr Wang’s father operated a grocery store in the Chenaton neighborhood of San Francisco, and in an apartment above the store, his son was born in Kim Arc 1870.
The growing number of Chinese workers on the west coast soon increased For economic competition and unreasonable racism. The Vigilant mob regularly targeted terrorism and sometimes even lunch on immigrants who were often described as inferior, inferior and inferior.
Federal laws also reflected this prejudice, such as the Chinese emissions Act of 1882, which prevented most Chinese people from entering the country and banned them from becoming a natural citizen.
At that time, Mr Wang’s parents took his son back to China with him. In greed with the promise of high wages, though, Mr Wang returned to the United States soon.
He was able to do so despite the Chinese -emitted act, as lawmakers adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 two years before their birth. It states that “all the people born in the United States or in nature, and its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and the state in which they live.”
The amendment revised the decision of the 1857 -Drade Scott, in which it was announced that Africans, who were slaves in the United States and their children, were not American citizens.
For Mr Wang and his supporters, the vast language of the amendment, especially the “all individuals” phrases, meant that people born in the United States like Mr Wang were citizens despite Chinese excluding laws. And the first time he traveled, he managed to re -enter the United States, proving that he was born in San Francisco.
But the government, trying to close what they had seen as searching, went out to find a test case, and landed on Mr Wang.
The government’s lawyers seized another amendment sentence – “subject to his jurisdiction” – to argue that Mr Wang’s parents were Chinese citizens at the time of his birth, so he’s the jurisdiction of the Emperor of China They were subject to, making their son a topic of foreign power.
Mr Wang’s lawyers cited Congress debates that the authors of this amendment intended the citizenship of birthright to apply extensively. The exceptions under the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction were very few: the children of foreign diplomats. Anti -foreign forces occupying the US territory. And initially, some local American (Congress increased citizenship for all local Americans in 1924.)
Mr Wang’s lawyers also had an important political insight: If Mr Wang loses his case, children born in the United States of white European immigrants will also be denied citizenship.
It was unclear how the Supreme Court would decide the case. Two years ago, in Palisi vs Ferguson, the court endorsed the “separate but equal” view, which legalized the laws of Jim Crowe, which for decades make black Americans in the south separate and despise. Yes. The court also upheld several Chinese excluding laws.
After more than a year, the court supported Mr Wang in 6-2 votes. In the verdict, Justice Hurris Gray explained that the 14th amendment to “all individuals” was words that were “limited only by place and jurisdiction, not by color and race.”
Since this decision, the citizenship of the birthright has not only been accepted only, but also praised them as a symbol of the country’s commitment to a basic American value: that to be born in the United States All the people are equal at birth, regardless of their race, religion, or the immigration of their parents.
Nevertheless, especially recently there has been some disagreement, as the country has struggled with the arrival of immigrants.
The Trump administration’s lawyers have argued in the recent judicial circle that the citizenship of birth rights is not only when parents get legally housing in the United States, as Mr Wang’s parents were at the time of their birth.
Lawyers have also said that non -documentary immigrants and temporary visas, such as tourists and students, maintain political loyalty to foreign governments, and thus are subject to their “jurisdiction”, and their United States. The children born to me are disqualified for automated US citizenship.
Rogers M Smith, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, is among a small group of legal scholars who have discussed a narrow interpretation of the 1898 decision. “The decision did not discuss the children of unauthorized foreigners,” he said. “It’s vague.”
Mr Smith said that personally, he was automatically in favor of the citizenship of birthright, including non -documentary immigrants. And like most legal scholars, he believes that President – Mr Trump has no authority to use the executive order to decide the questions under the 14th Amendment.
Most legal scholars believe that it is unlikely that the current Supreme Court will want to re -interpret an example that is more than a century.
The constitutional status of the citizenship of birth is not a particularly ideological problem. Among those who have discussed in favor of a widespread understanding of the 14th Amendment Citizenship clause LifeA famous conservative law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
Although there are signs that the earth is changing.
Judge James C, who is sitting on an American court appeal for the fifth circuit and mentioned as a Supreme Court candidate, once forcibly discussed in favor of automated citizenship for all children of American -born children. But In an interview in the last fallJudge Ho was looking back from this extensive translation, and requested another argument that the Trump administration has cited in his recent legal filing.
He told an interviewer, “In the event of a war or attack, the citizenship of birth is not applied.” “In my knowledge, no one has argued that children who attacked foreigners are entitled to the citizenship of birthright.”
Some scholars look even more unpleasant. History’s History Professor Erica Lee said that President Trump needs to look in a broader context of his efforts to prevent immigration, an executive order related to citizenship of President Trump, as the Wang Kim Arc case intense anti -anti -anti -anti -anti Out of Chinese emotions.
“I think, there is a very clear parallel between the time and now,” he said.
Until recently, the Wang Kim Arc case was rarely discussed publicly that Mr. Wang’s descendants were also Knew a little bit About their history -making. Now, a new debate on this decision can confirm what is meant to be an American, and who becomes one.
As far as Mr Wang is concerned, after his victory in court, he – like many Chinese Americans – is facing a long investigation by federal immigration officials to prove that he is a citizen.
Finally, he went to China.
