Loading summary
Transcript126 lines
- [00:00]
Tracy V. Wilson
Breaking News T Mobile Network outperforms expectations in all sectors because T Mobile helps keep you connected from the heart of Portland to right where you are on America's largest 5G network. Switch now keep your phone and T Mobile will pay it off up to $800 per line via prepaid card. Visit your local T Mobile location or learn more@t mobile.com keepandswitch up to 4 lines of your virtual prepaid card. Allow 15 days qualifying unlocked device, credit service support in 90 days device and eligible carrier and timely redemption required. Card has no cash access and expires in six months.
- [00:31]
Maria Tremarki
Welcome to the Criminalia Podcast. I'm Maria Tremarki.
- [00:34]
Holly Fry
And I'm Holly Fry. Together we invite you into the dark and winding corridors of historical true crime.
- [00:41]
Maria Tremarki
Each season we explore a new theme. From poisoners to art thieves.
- [00:45]
Holly Fry
We uncover the secrets of history's most interesting figures, from legal injustices to body.
- [00:52]
Maria Tremarki
Snatching, and tune in at the end of each episode as we indulge in cocktails and mocktails inspired by each story.
- [00:59]
Holly Fry
Listen to criminalia on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [01:05]
Osvaloshin
Do you want to see into the future? Do you want to understand an invisible force that's shaping your life? Do you want to experience the frontiers of what makes us human? On tech stuff we travel from the mines of Congo to the surface of Mars, from conversations with Nobel Prize winners to the depths of TikTok to ask burning questions about technology to from high tech to low culture and everywhere in between. Join us Listen to tech stuff on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [01:35]
Emilia
I'm Emila, host of the podcast Crumbs. For years I had to rely on other people to tell me my story, and what I heard wasn't good. You really Last night it felt like I lived most of my life in a blackout. I was trapped in addiction. I had to grab the lamp and smashed it against the walls. And then I decided I wanted to own story, listen to crumbs on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [02:07]
Holly Fry
Welcome to Stuff youf Missed in History Class, a production of iHeartRadio.
- [02:17]
Tracy V. Wilson
Hello and welcome to the Podcast. I'm Tracy V. Wilson.
- [02:21]
Holly Fry
And I'm Holly Fry.
- [02:23]
Tracy V. Wilson
Last year we did an episode on artist Tyrus Wong, who was instrumental in developing the look and feel for Disney's Bambi. Along with creating just a prolific amount of other really beautiful work across multiple media, Wong had been brought to the United States as a child at a time when the Chinese Exclusion act banned immigration to the United States from China. And one of the things we talked about in that episode was how a Supreme Court case called United States versus Wong Kim Ark had affected how the US could enforce the Chinese Exclusion act because the court had found that people who were born in the US To Chinese parents were US Citizens. When we did that previous episode, I said that United States versus Won Kim Ark was another topic that was on my episode list, and we got a number of emails from listeners saying that they were looking forward to getting that one. Obviously, this has become newly relevant in light of the Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship issued by President Donald Trump on Inauguration Day. So I moved it to the top of the list. I just want to note we are currently at a place where we are writing and recording episodes a couple of weeks before they come out. Honestly, I could not even keep up with all the news and commentary about this Executive Order as I was researching and writing the episode. We cannot predict what might happen with it between writing and recording the episode and when it actually hits your ears in a couple of weeks. So this is not going into any kind of detail about the Executive Order or the constitutional arguments around the Executive Order. This is about the historical Supreme Court case.
- [04:18]
Holly Fry
So to talk about the US Supreme Court's decision in the United States versus Wong Kim, Arkansas, we need to work our way back a few steps. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, and it forms the foundation of the federal government. When it went into effect in 1789, it didn't explicitly define what a citizen was or how a person became a citizen. At the same time, it contained language that made it clear that citizenship existed and was important. Article two, Section one said that, quote, no person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President. Article 4 also included the clause, quote, the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
- [05:14]
Tracy V. Wilson
The Constitution didn't define citizen or natural born, but for the most part, the way citizenship worked in the United States was following ideas from English common law. Although there was some nuance around who was considered a full citizen and who had the right to vote, there was also a basic understanding in English common law that people born in the monarch's realm were subjects of the monarch. Of course, the United States is a republic. It is not supposed to have monarchs or subjects. But the Basic idea carried over that people born in the United States were citizens of of the Republic. In terms of legal theory, this is known as US solely or the right of the soil. The idea that citizenship is inherited from a person's parents is common in other systems and it is known as US Sanguinis, or the right of blood.
- [06:15]
Holly Fry
Over the decades that followed, various laws and court decisions related to U.S. citizenship in some way and to the idea of who could be a citizen. One was Dred Scott versus Sanford, which was decided in 1857. We did a two part episode on this case that came out on July 16th and 18th of 2018. But briefly, Dred Scott and his wife Harriet had been enslaved and when their enslaver died, they were living in free territory. The Scots sued for their freedom on the grounds that since they were taken to free territory, they were free. The U.S. supreme Court did not answer the question of whether that was the case. Instead it said that the issue was outside its jurisdiction, writing, quote, a free Negro of the African race whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. That meant that the Scots did not have the right to sue in federal court.
- [07:20]
Tracy V. Wilson
A few years later, multiple states seceded from the Union over the issue of slavery and the United States Civil war began in 1861. After the war ended in 1865, part of the US government's focus was reuniting and rebuilding the country that time known as Reconstruction, which also involved trying to address the harms of centuries of slavery. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude except in punishment for a crime, was ratified in December of 1865. Early the following year, Congress passed the Civil Rights act of 1866, or An act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights and furnish the means of their vindication.
- [08:13]
Holly Fry
This said in part, quote, all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizens of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right in every State and territory in the United States to make and enforce contracts to sue, be parties and give evidence to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. President Andrew Johnson vetoed this bill and Congress overrode that veto on April 9, 1866.
- [09:27]
Tracy V. Wilson
This was the first U.S. law to define citizenship, and it overturned Dred Scott versus Sanford. But legislators understood that laws can be repealed, and if that happened with this law, people would use the Supreme Court decision to justify trying to bar people with African ancestry from citizenship. Constitutional amendments are a lot harder to change than laws are. They have to be passed by a two thirds majority of Congress and then ratified by three fourths of the states before they go into effect. And then they can only be repealed if a new amendment goes through that same process. So as they were working on these constitutional amendments after the Civil War, very similar language was added to the first section of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Quote, 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.
- [10:31]
Holly Fry
Today that language is known as the Citizenship Clause. It explicitly repudiated the Dred Scott decision and added a clear definition of who was a US Citizen to the Constitution. People born in the United States or naturalized.
- [10:50]
Tracy V. Wilson
There were, of course, limited exceptions. It didn't spell out what was meant by, quote, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But this was generally interpreted as referencing a few very specific groups. Diplomats from other countries were not under US Jurisdiction. They were under the jurisdiction of the country they were serving. So any children born to them in the United States were not US Citizens. Also, if a foreign army were to invade the United States, or if foreign soldiers were in the United States for some other reason, they also would not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. So their children also would not be considered citizens.
- [11:38]
Holly Fry
A third group not considered to be under U.S. jurisdiction was indigenous people who were described as Indians, not taxed in the Civil Rights act of 1866 and in other language in the 14th Amendment. And there is some critically important context here. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was passed by the Senate in 1866 and ratified two years later. This was near the end of what some historians describe as the treaty making era of federal Indian policy. At a very basic level, a treaty is an agreement between two sovereign nations. The treaties we're talking about in this case were generally skewed in favor of the United States, and they were connected to ongoing violence and genocide against indigenous people. But they still rested on the idea that the United States was one sovereign nation and the indigenous nation was another. So in the view of the authors of the Civil Rights act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, indigenous people were first and foremost under the jurisdiction of their own sovereign indigenous nation, not of the United States, even though the United States had created and imposed systems that kept those indigenous nations dependent on the United States for their survival.
- [13:01]
Tracy V. Wilson
Yeah, there's some really very memey and in my opinion, overly reductive discourse going around the Internet and social media about this right now. It was primarily about tribal sovereignty, even in a limited sense of tribal sovereignty that was actually existing when it was written. The 14th amendment to the Constitution was deeply controversial, but it's clear that the people who drafted it understood that that it would grant citizenship to everyone born in the United States without regard to race or color, with the exception of the very specific groups we just mentioned. That is what they intended for it to do. Part of the whole point was that we were no longer going to have classes of people who, by their heredity, were excluded from citizenship. This had been addressed during congressional debates over the Civil Rights act of 1866, which was the origin point for this language in the 14th amendment. I am going to read some of this heads up. There's a term in here that is considered a slur today. So Edward Cowan of Pennsylvania asked, quote, whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country. Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, who was chair of the committee that drafted the bill, answered, quote, undoubtedly, before continuing, quote, is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? Cowan answered, quote, the children of German parents are citizens, but Germans are not Chinese. And then Trumbull answered this with, quote, the law makes no such distinction, and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.
- [14:52]
Holly Fry
When Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan introduced similar language as part of the 14th Amendment, he described it as declaratory of what he saw as the law of the land. Already. He described it as excluding, quote, foreigners, aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States. And after some additional discussion, language was adjusted so that it would be clear that it also excluded indigenous people for the reasons that we already talked about. Then Cowan brought up the same question he'd asked about the Civil Rights act of 1866. Talking about the subject at length this.
- [15:32]
Tracy V. Wilson
Time, Cowan was answered by John Connis of California, which was the state in which most of the Chinese immigrants to the United States were actually living. Connis said, quote, the proposition before us relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law. Now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage, whatever, born in California should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Conis also went on at length, the transcripts of both of these comments are very long before saying, quote, we are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.
- [16:46]
Holly Fry
So while it's clear that this language was intentionally drafted in a way that would include the children of Chinese immigrants as citizens, there were also plenty of people, including lawmakers, who did not want a law or amendment that would do that. The Civil Rights act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment were both passed and ratified over these objections. Under the Reconstruction act of 1867, the states that had seceded from the US were required to ratify the 14th Amendment in order to rejoin the Union, and some people argued that because of this, the amendment itself was not valid. But again, that was not about the meaning of the citizenship clause. There were controversies around other provisions of the 14th Amendment as well, but those are outside the scope of what we're talking about today.
- [17:37]
Tracy V. Wilson
Almost immediately, people who did not want this to be in the Constitution started trying to find a way to get a legal interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction thereof that would exclude specific groups of people from the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Initially, a big focus of that was the children of Chinese immigrants. That led to the United States versus Won Kim Ark, and we will get into that after a sponsor break.
- [18:07]
Osvaloshin
Do you want to understand an invisible force that's shaping your life? I'm Osvaloshin, one of the new hosts of the long running podcast Tech Stuff. I'm slightly skeptical but obsessively intrigued.
- [18:18]
Holly Fry
And I'm Cara Price, the other new host, and I'm ready to adopt early.
- [18:23]
Osvaloshin
And often on tech stuff. We travel all the way from the mines of Congo to the surface of Mars to the dark corners of TikTok to ask and attempt to answer burning questions about technology.
- [18:34]
Holly Fry
One of the kind of tricks for surviving Mars is to live there long enough so that people evolve into Martians. Like data is a very rough proxy for a complex reality.
- [18:44]
Osvaloshin
How is it possible that the world's new energy revolution can be based in this place where there's no electricity at night?
- [18:51]
Holly Fry
Oz and I will cut through the noise to bring you the best conversations and deep dives that will help you understand how tech is changing our world and what you need to know to survive the singularity.
- [19:01]
Osvaloshin
So join us Listen to tech stuff on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [19:10]
Maria Tremarki
Welcome to the Criminalia Podcast. I'm Maria Tremarke.
- [19:13]
Holly Fry
And I'm Holly Fry. Together we invite you into the dark and winding corridors of historical true crime.
- [19:20]
Maria Tremarki
Each season we explore a new theme, everything from poisoners and pirates to art thieves and snake oil products and those who made and sold them.
- [19:28]
Holly Fry
We uncover the stories and secrets of some of history's most compelling criminal figures, including a man who built a submarine as a getaway vehicle. Yep, that's a fact.
- [19:39]
Maria Tremarki
We also look at what kinds of societal forces were at play at the time of the crime, from legal injustices to the ethics of body snatching, to see what, if anything, might look different through today's perspective.
- [19:51]
Holly Fry
And be sure to tune in at the end of each episode as we indulge in custom made cocktails and mocktails inspired by the stories. There's one for every story we tell.
- [20:02]
Maria Tremarki
Listen to criminalia on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [20:10]
Emilia
I'm Dr. Laurie Santos and to welcome the new year, my podcast the Happiness Lab is releasing a series of happiness how to guides to help you in 2025. I'll distill the wisdom of world class experts into easy to digest actionable tips.
- [20:24]
Tracy V. Wilson
It's about never feeling good enough.
- [20:27]
Holly Fry
I feel like I'm always failing.
- [20:29]
Emilia
You'll learn how to handle relationships, how to be inspiring, and how to find your purpose.
- [20:33]
Holly Fry
We make it this big pie in the sky thing and then of course we're all frustrated because no one knows.
- [20:39]
Tracy V. Wilson
How to get there.
- [20:39]
Emilia
Struggling with tough emotions. We have a How to guide. Worried that you're not enough? We got you self obsessed and want to get over yourself. There's a guide for that too.
- [20:49]
Holly Fry
The ability to approach somebody and make them experience desire for you in minutes or even hours is a rare and rather unnecessary skill. Historically Speaking.
- [21:00]
Emilia
The Happiness Lab's How to season starts January 1st. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your Podcasts Catch.
- [21:09]
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart back in action on the Daily show and in your ears with the Daily Show Ears Edition podcast. From his hilarious satirical takes on today's politics and entertainment to the unique voices of correspondents and contributors, it's your perfect companion to stay on top of what's happening now. Plus, you'll get special content just for podcast listeners, like in depth interviews and a roundup of the week's top headlines. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [21:49]
Tracy V. Wilson
Long Cam Arc was born in San Francisco, California, probably sometime between 1869 and 1873. Different documents give different years. His mother's name was Wee Li and his father was Wong Cping. Wong Ciping was a merchant, part of a firm called quang Sing & Co. And won Kim Ark was born in his parents home above his father's shop on Sacramento Street.
- [22:16]
Holly Fry
It's not clear exactly when the Wong family first arrived in the U.S. although one document describes it as a long time prior to his birth. At the time, immigration between China and the United States would have been governed by treaty. If it was after July 28, 1868, that would have been the one known in English as the Burlingame Treaty. Among other things, this treaty removed restrictions on immigration to the US From China and specified that such immigration did not confer naturalization upon Chinese citizens in the US or vice versa.
- [22:53]
Tracy V. Wilson
Chinese people in the United States had always faced racism and bigotry, and that escalated as more people came to the US From China. This was also tied to things like jobs and economic conditions. A lot of Chinese laborers had come to the US during the California Gold Rush, and as long as the Gold Rush was booming, their labor was really welcomed by employers, even if they, as people were being shunned and disparaged. When the Gold Rush ended, though, they needed to find new work and were seen as taking jobs from white workers. The same cycle happened again with the Transatlantic Railroad. Chinese workers were an enormous part of that effort, but then faced immense hostility after the railroad was finished in 1869.
- [23:43]
Holly Fry
Chinese immigrants were also described as a, quote, unassimilable race, meaning that they were not willing or able to assimilate with white communities. Laws and unwritten rules forced Chinese immigrants to live in small, isolated enclaves, and then they faced judgment and bigotry for continuing to speak Chinese and observe Chinese norms and social customs. There was also mob violence against these communities, including a massacre in Los Angeles in 1871 and a violent and deadly attack on San Francisco's Chinatown on July 24, 1877.
- [24:22]
Tracy V. Wilson
We talk a lot more about that in the episode on Chai Chongping versus the United States, which we just ran as a Saturday classic. We don't know for sure why the Wongs decided to return to China, but it was after this 1877 attack. Living in the United States also would have been incredibly isolating for Wei Li. There were only about 5,5000 Chinese women in the entire country. And within the Chinese community, it wasn't considered appropriate for women of her station to be out in public among strangers.
- [24:58]
Holly Fry
Wong Kim Ark was still a child when his family left for China. A few years later, when he was in his teens, he returned to the United States with an uncle and he started working as a dishwasher and a cook in mining camps in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. In 1889, when he was about 19, he visited China again and he got married there. The Chinese community in the United States was, as the statistic Tracy just mentioned makes clear, overwhelmingly male. And an anti miscegenation laws made it illegal for them to marry people of other races. So if he wanted to get married and have children, his only real option was to do so in China. While his wife was pregnant with their first child, Wong returned to the United States where he could make more money to support his family.
- [25:49]
Tracy V. Wilson
Wang made another visit to China in 1894. He had prepared a departure statement before leaving the United States, which read, quote, whereas Wong Kim Ark, whose photograph is hereto attached, is about to depart for China intending to return to the United States and is entitled to return thereto. Now, therefore, for the better identification of the said Won Kim Ark and in order to facilitate his landing upon his said return, we the undersigned do hereby certify that the said Wong Kim Ark is well known to us that he was born in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, that his father, Wong Siping, was a merchant and a member of of the firm of kwong Singh and Company, number 751 Sacramento street in the said city and county of San Francisco, State of California. This was signed by three white witnesses who also gave their addresses. It was notarized and it was signed and stamped by the inspector on Wong Kim Ark's departure.
- [26:57]
Holly Fry
It was not enough when Wong returned to the US in August of 1895 aboard the SS Coptic, John H. Wise, described as a, quote, zealous opponent of Chinese immigration, was the collector of customs for the port of San Francisco. And Wise refused to let Wong into the country, claiming that he was Not a citizen. Wong was detained aboard the Coptic.
- [27:23]
Tracy V. Wilson
By this point, the United States had banned immigration from China under the Chinese Exclusion act of 1882. In 1888, the Scott act had also made it illegal for Chinese immigrants who left the United States to return. This again is stuff that we talked about in our most recent Saturday Classic. In 1892, the Geary act had also extended the Chinese Exclusion act for another 10 years. And it had specified that if a writ of habeas corpus was issued for a Chinese person who was denied entry into the United States, no bail would be allowed for that person. The U. S. Supreme Court had upheld this as constitutional the following year. Legally, Chinese immigrants also could not be naturalized as citizens.
- [28:15]
Holly Fry
So if Wong Kim Ark had been an immigrant, Wise would have been legally justified in keeping him out of the U. S. The Chinese Exclusion act did contain exceptions for diplomats, travelers, merchants, teachers and students. And since Wong was a cook, this didn't apply to him. But he wasn't an immigrant. He had been born in the United States. So under the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, he was a U.S. citizen.
- [28:44]
Tracy V. Wilson
Some of Wang's friends filed a writ of habeas corpus to try to get him released. And soon the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent association, also called the Chinese Sixth Companies, stepped in. The Chinese Six Companies had started out as a charitable and mutual aid organization focused on the needs of Chinese immigrants to the U.S. by this point, their work had expanded to include legal defense, including on immigration issues. They had attorney Thomas D. Riordan on retainer, and Riordan started working with Wong's case. When the Coptic left port, Wong was moved to another ship, the Gaelic, and then moved from the Gaelic to the peking. Finally, on January 3, 1896, after he had been forced to live aboard these ships for almost six months, Judge William Morrow ordered him released on $250 bond.
- [29:40]
Holly Fry
The United States filed an appeal. And this wasn't just about keeping Wong out of the country. Like we said earlier, there had always been people who objected to the 14th Amendment citizenship clause. Officials like Wise and the U. S. Department of justice were looking for a test case that could go all the way to the Supreme Court with the hope that the courts would define the phrase subject to its jurisdiction as excluding the children of Chinese immigrants born in.
- [30:10]
Tracy V. Wilson
The U. S. From the DoJ's perspective, Wong Kim Ark was the perfect test case for this for a number of reasons. He had been born in the United States to Chinese parents who had lawfully entered the country. Apart from visits to China, he had been living in the United states, almost all of it in the same neighborhood of San Francisco. For many years. His wife and children were living in China, so there would be no dramatic headlines about the federal government breaking up a family if he was deported, and also no family left in the United States. Without financial support, Wong had no criminal record and he paid taxes since he was working as a cook. They also didn't expect him to have a lot of money available to try to mount a legal defense.
- [31:00]
Holly Fry
From the perspective of Wong and his supporters, the idea of winning a Supreme Court case probably seemed really doubtful. The Chinese six companies had very skilled attorneys, and they had had some success with lower courts, but none of the cases that had gotten all the way to the Supreme Court had been found in their favor. The Supreme Court had also issued a decision on a group of cases known as the slaughterhouse cases in 1873. That is a whole other topic, but part of the decision was that the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments had been written in the context of free and formerly enslaved black people, and that their protections did not necessarily apply to people of other races.
- [31:46]
Tracy V. Wilson
We will look at the case as it went to the Supreme Court after a sponsor break.
- [31:53]
Osvaloshin
Do you want to understand an invisible force that's shaping your life? I'm Osvaloshian, one of the new hosts of the long running podcast Tech Stuff. I'm slightly skeptical, but obsessively intrigued.
- [32:04]
Holly Fry
And I'm Cara Price, the other new host, and I'm ready to adopt early.
- [32:08]
Osvaloshin
And often on Tech Stuff. We travel all the way from the mines of Congo to the surface of Mars to the dark corners of TikTok to ask and attempt to answer burning questions about technology.
- [32:20]
Holly Fry
One of the kind of tricks for surviving Mars is to live there long enough so that people evolve into Martians. Like data is a very rough proxy for a complex reality. How is it possible that the world.
- [32:32]
Osvaloshin
World'S new energy revolution can be based in this place where there's no electricity at night?
- [32:37]
Tracy V. Wilson
Oz and I will cut through the.
- [32:39]
Holly Fry
Noise to bring you the best conversations and deep dives that will help you understand how tech is changing our world and what you need to know to survive the singularity.
- [32:48]
Osvaloshin
So join us, listen to tech stuff on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [32:56]
Maria Tremarki
Welcome to the Criminalia Podcast. I'm Maria Tremarke.
- [32:59]
Holly Fry
And I'm Holly Fry. Together we invite you into the dark and winding corridors of historical true crime.
- [33:06]
Maria Tremarki
Each season we explore a new theme, everything from poisoners and pirates to art thieves and snake oil products and those who made and sold them.
- [33:14]
Holly Fry
We uncover the stories and secrets of some of history's most compelling criminal figures, including a man who built a submarine as a getaway vehicle. Yep, that's a fact.
- [33:25]
Maria Tremarki
We also look at what kinds of societal forces were at play at the time of the crime, from legal injustices to the ethics of body snatching, to see what, if anything, might look different through today's perspective.
- [33:37]
Holly Fry
And be sure to tune in at the end of each episode as we indulge in custom made cocktails and mocktails inspired by the stories. There's one for every story we tell.
- [33:48]
Maria Tremarki
Listen to criminalia on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [33:56]
Emilia
I'm Dr. Laurie Santos and to welcome the new year, my podcast the Happiness Lab is releasing a series of happiness how to guides to help you in 2025. I'll distill the wisdom of world class experts into easy to digest actionable tips.
- [34:10]
Tracy V. Wilson
It's about never feeling good enough. I feel like I'm always failing.
- [34:15]
Emilia
You'll learn how to handle relationships, how to be inspiring, and how to find your purpose.
- [34:19]
Holly Fry
We make it this big pie in the sky thing and then of course we're are frustrated because no one knows.
- [34:25]
Tracy V. Wilson
How to get there.
- [34:26]
Emilia
Struggling with tough emotions. We have a How to guide. Worried that you're not enough? We got you self obsessed and want to get over yourself. There's a guide for that too.
- [34:35]
Holly Fry
The ability to approach somebody and make them experience desire for you in minutes or even hours is a rare and rather unnecessary skill. Historically Speaking.
- [34:46]
Emilia
The Happiness Lab's How to season starts January 1st. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [34:55]
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart is back at the Daily show and he's bringing his signature wit and insight straight to your ears with the Daily Show Ears Edition podcast. Dive into John's unique take on the biggest topics in politics, entertainment, sports and more. Joined by the sharp voices of the show's correspondence and contributors, and with extended interviews and exclusive weekly headline roundups, this podcast gives you content you won't find anywhere else. Ready to laugh and stay informed? Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [35:39]
Tracy V. Wilson
The U.S. supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark in early March of 1897. Wong's representatives argued that the Constitution was established on the principles of English common law that we mentioned earlier in the episode. They also argued that interpreting the 14th Amendment in a way that meant Wong was not a citizen would also apply to a lot of other people who had been born in the United States to immigrants from other countries. Specifically a whole lot of other people who were considered to be white. Thomas D. Riordan, who we mentioned earlier, spelled this out in an interview that he gave during all of this, saying, quote, think of all the people in this country who have been born of parents who owe allegiance to either Great Britain, Germany, Italy or some other European power. Are all these people to be declared not citizens? He said that there might be 200,000 people in that position, but he also called that a low estimate.
- [36:45]
Holly Fry
The United States argument was that while Wong had been born in the U.S. he was, quote, by reason of his race, language, color and dress, a Chinese person. They argued that under international law, children received the citizenship of their parents, not citizenship of based on where they were born. That's the jus sanguineous idea that we mentioned earlier in the episode.
- [37:11]
Tracy V. Wilson
The Supreme Court issued its decision more than a year later, on March 28, 1898, the day after Inauguration Day. The Court ruled in favor of Wong 6 to 2. There were nine justices. But Justice Joseph McKenna didn't participate. He had replaced Justice Stephen Field, who had retired after the oral arguments but before the decision was issued.
- [37:37]
Holly Fry
The majority opinion in this case includes pages and pages and pages of earlier decisions related in some way to citizenship, starting with people who had been born in the British colonies before the Revolutionary War and whether those people had been considered British subjects, which they had. There were also cases involving people born in England to foreign parents, with those children also considered British subjects. Over and over again. These cases involved scenarios in which children were considered citizens of the place they were born, regardless of their parents citizenship. This opinion even referenced the dissent in Dred Scott versus Sanford, which said in part, quote, the first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language a natural born citizen. It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth.
- [38:33]
Tracy V. Wilson
The opinion went on to say, quote, passing by questions once earnestly controverted but finally put at rest by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. It is beyond doubt that before the enactment of the Civil Rights act of 1866 or the Adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons at least born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or foreigners, accepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government were native born citizens of the United States.
- [39:11]
Holly Fry
Later on, the opinion said, quote, as appears upon the face of the amendment as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott versus Sanford, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks as well as whites born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.
- [40:04]
Tracy V. Wilson
From there it referenced the slaughterhouse cases as well as other cases that had focused on the scope of the reconstruction amendments before saying, quote, but the opening words all persons born are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place and jurisdiction, and not by color or race, as was clearly recognized in all the opinions delivered in the slaughterhouse cases above cited.
- [40:33]
Holly Fry
This decision also reiterated the idea that at that time indigenous people were not considered to be u. S. Citizens at birth. The supreme court had already heard and decided on a case related specifically to this, that was Elk versus Wilkins in 1884. This case could also be a whole episode of its own. But briefly, John Elk was Winnebago and had been born on a reservation, but had later renounced his tribal citizenship and begun living in a non indigenous community, as summarized in the decision of The United States vs Wong Kim, arc quote, it was decided that an Indian born, a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still existed and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a state, but who did not appear to have been naturalized or taxed or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, was not a citizen of the United States as a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof within the meaning of the clause in question.
- [41:50]
Tracy V. Wilson
To be super clear, this was not saying he could not become a citizen, just that he had not been one of the United States from birth. The majority opinion ended, quote, the evident intention and the necessary effect of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination. The single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States of parent of Chinese descent who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are there carrying on business and are not employed in any domestic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this Court is of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
- [42:52]
Holly Fry
Chief Justice Melville Fuller and Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented. They argued that the Amendment should not be interpreted within a framework of English common law, but instead should rest on international law in which citizenship more commonly came from a person's parents. They also argued that the Court's interpretation would mean that US Citizens, children born while their parents were abroad, would be considered aliens in the U.S. they cited a small number of earlier cases in which someone's citizenship had been decided based on who their parents were.
- [43:29]
Tracy V. Wilson
The dissenting opinion also argued that the children of Chinese immigrants, specifically unlike the children of other immigrants, could not be considered to be completely under US Jurisdiction. By treaty and by law, Chinese immigrants living in the United States could not become U.S. citizens. They were still Chinese citizens. And in the dissenting Justice's opinions, they were loyal to the Emperor, and their children would also be loyal to the Emperor because in their religion, quote, filial piety is the first and greatest commandment.
- [44:09]
Holly Fry
In spite of the language it contained in practice, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution did not mean that everyone in the US Actually had access to things like due process and equal protection under the laws. We have so many episodes about the ongoing patterns of discrimination and racism that continued after it was ratified. And this Court case did not mean that people like Wong Kim Ark were suddenly regarded as US Citizens on equal footing with white people born in the US There were still plenty of people who wanted an interpretation of the 14th Amendment in which that phrase under the jurisdiction thereof did not apply to Chinese people. There have been ongoing efforts in the decades since, which are still going on today, to try to get a more narrow reading of that jurisdiction language like right now. One of the arguments is that the Court's opinion notes that Wong's parents were lawful permanent residents with a domicile. So the children of people who aren't permanent legal residents should not be considered citizens. A counter argument to that is when the 14th Amendment was drafted, there wasn't really a concept of illegal immigration, but it did apply to the children of people who had entered the United States illegally, specifically the children of people who had been illegally trafficked after the US banned the slave trade in 1808.
- [45:35]
Tracy V. Wilson
I know that seems like a super problematic argument from the modern perspective, but that was still how it worked. Those were people who were considered to have entered the United States illegally. Their children were citizens and Chinese immigrants. And their children were obviously still subjected to harassment, racism and bigotry, and this affected Wong Kim Ark and his family directly. In 1901, Wong was arrested and nearly deported from El Paso, Texas, while trying to cross back into the United States from Mexico. He had to convince authorities that he was a citizen because Wang was a citizen by law. His children born in China were also U.S. citizens. And ultimately three of his sons were able to enter the United States. But each of them faced detainment and interrogations while trying to do so. An immigration station was built at angel island in 1910, and that's where people, mostly from China and other parts of Asia, were put through intense questioning that was designed to try to keep them out of the United States. And they also had to go through humiliating physical exams. We talked more about angel island and these interrogations in our episode on Tyrus Wong. One of Wong Kim Ark's sons, Wong Yok Fun, was refused entry into the United States and deported back to China in 1911 because investigators at angel island claimed his answers had too many discrepancies from his fathers. Again, these interrogations were made to be unpassable.
- [47:17]
Holly Fry
Wong Yuksu was also denied entry into the United States in 1924, but was eventually allowed in after Wong Kim Ark testified on his behalf. This is also connected to the paper sons that we talked about in our episode on Tyrus Wong. People who claimed to be the children of US Citizens or born in the US but were really born in China to Chinese parents. Wong Yuksu had been presented as Wong Kim Ark's citizen son. But in 1960, as part of the U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Services Chinese Confession Program, Wong Yuksu admitted to being a paper son. Wong Kim Ark had died by this point. He had returned to China in 1931, saying he intended to return to the U.S. but he didn't return, and we don't really know what happened to him after this or his thoughts about presenting Wong Yuksu as his paper son.
- [48:14]
Tracy V. Wilson
The United States also continued to ban immigration from China after this. In 1904, the Chinese Exclusion Acts were renewed indefinitely. They were not formally repealed until December 17, 1943, which is also when it became legal for Chinese immigrants to be naturalized as US Citizens.
- [48:37]
Holly Fry
Also, because the citizenship status of indigenous people has come up several times in this episode, the Indian Citizenship act was signed into law in 1924. It read, quote, be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, provided that the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property. Indigenous people themselves had a range of opinions on being granted US Citizenship, including some tribes that lobbied heavily against this law. Many of the white people who advocated for it were motivated by the idea that it would help reduce corruption within the Bureau of Indian affairs, not by the well being or wishes of the Indigenous people.
- [49:37]
Tracy V. Wilson
It would apply to the Executive Order that we mentioned at the top of the show doesn't mention the Indian Citizenship act or Elk vs Wilkins or the idea of birthright citizenship for Indigenous people specifically, but a Justice Department filing in response to a motion for a restraining order against the Executive Order does. That filing cites Elk vs. Wilkins and United States vs. Wong Kim Ark in its arguments that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause applies only to the children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents of the U.S. this has led to concerns that there might be an attempt to end birthright citizenship for Indigenous people. My basic understanding of this is that there is more consensus at this point than a century ago that Indigenous people would like to have US Citizenship as well as the citizenship of their Indigenous nations.
- [50:39]
Holly Fry
Again, it was impossible to keep up with every aspect of what was happening with this Executive Order while this episode was being researched and recorded. But most legal and constitutional scholars that have weighed in have said that an Executive Order cannot overrule the Constitution. Instead, what is likely to happen is that this Executive Order will lead to another test case that will need to make its way to the Supreme Court As United States vs Wong Kim Ark did.
- [51:09]
Tracy V. Wilson
I have some very lighthearted is not the right word. It is listener mail. That's not about anything of consequence really. It's just for fun to close this out.
- [51:20]
Holly Fry
Yay.
- [51:21]
Tracy V. Wilson
This is from Randall. Randall wrote in after our recent unearthed installments where we talked about archaeologists leaving messages and bottles at their archaeological sites for future archaeologists to find. And Randall wrote hi all, I was interested in the messages found in bottles. We are restoring a 1782 house. Previous owners stripped three rooms of their plaster and lath. We are putting back the lath and re plastering with lime plaster. Maybe a substance you should look into since it is a really fascinating product. It cures by Cap Carbon. We have seen some articles of people finding Shoes hidden in their old houses. Apparently it was to ward off evil. Before I closed the final wall, I stuck in a pair of my old sneakers. They are size 16 double wide, so I figured they will ward off a bunch of evil and give future renovators something to talk about. I love your podcast, Randall. Randall. I love this story There historically, I'm just talking specifically about North America, but other places too, like there have been traditions of putting all kinds of things in walls and up chimneys as an idea of like warding off evil and protecting the house and things like that. And so I just love the idea of centuries from now an archeologist being like, is this a thing that people were doing in the year?
- [52:47]
Holly Fry
In my case, there's a great misinterpretation where they're like, this house must have been full of evil spirits because they procured an extra large shoe.
- [52:59]
Tracy V. Wilson
I love that too.
- [53:01]
Holly Fry
I'm a fan of putting surprises in construction. We have done it in our house in several places.
- [53:07]
Tracy V. Wilson
Yes. I just generally like the idea of far in the future if, you know, if in some way your home specifically, you know, at some time far in the future, rather than having been through a series of additional owners, that your house as is, becomes an archaeological site. And I think about this rideau becomes like the focus of archaeological study.
- [53:32]
Holly Fry
Yeah, they're gonna be like, there was clearly some sort of religion around this figure and we don't understand it, but.
- [53:36]
Tracy V. Wilson
There'S something incredibly important. Anyway, anyway, thanks for giving us a moment to laugh, Randall. If you would like to send us a note about this or any other podcast, we're at history podcast@iheartradio.com. if you have not subscribed to the show, you can do that. We're on the iHeartRadio app and really wherever else you like to get your podcasts. Stuff youf Missed in History Class is a production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
- [54:22]
Maria Tremarki
Welcome to the Criminalia podcast. I'm Maria Tremorki.
- [54:25]
Holly Fry
And I'm Holly Fry. Together we invite you into the dark and winding corridors of historical true crime.
- [54:32]
Maria Tremarki
Each season we explore a new theme. From poisoners to art thieves.
- [54:36]
Holly Fry
We uncover the secrets of history's most interesting figures, from legal injustices to body snatching.
- [54:43]
Maria Tremarki
And tune in at the end of each episode as we indulge in cocktails and mocktails inspired by each story.
- [54:50]
Holly Fry
Listen to criminalia on the iHeartRadio app. Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [54:56]
Osvaloshin
Do you want to see into the future? Do you want to understand an invisible force that's shaping your life? Do you want to experience the front of what makes us human? On tech stuff we travel from the mines of Congo to the surface of Mars, from conversations with Nobel Prize winners to the depths of TikTok to ask burning questions about technology. From high tech to low culture and everywhere in between. Join us Listen to tech stuff on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [55:26]
Emilia
I'm Emmy Olea, host of the podcast Crumbs. For years I had to rely on other people to tell me my story, and what I heard wasn't good. You really Last night it felt like I lived most of my life in a blackout. I was trapped in addiction. I had to grab the lamp and smashed it against the wall. And then I decided I wanted to tell my own story. Listen to crumbs on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [55:57]
Holly Fry
$1.4 billion in NFL quarterback contracts the untold stories behind the biggest deals in football history I'm AJ Stephens, vice president of Client strategy at Athletes first, introducing the Athletes First Family podcast, the Quarterback Series. My co host Brian Murphy, Athletes first CEO, and I are sitting down with the agents who have negotiated contracts for Justin Herbert, Deshaun Watson, Dak Prescott, Tua Tugavailoa, and Jordan Love. Listen to athletes first family podcasts on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.