Stuff You Missed in History Class: United States vs. Wong Kim Ark
Hosted by iHeartPodcasts
Release Date: February 10, 2025

Introduction

In the episode titled "United States vs. Wong Kim Ark," hosts Tracy V. Wilson and Holly Fry delve into a pivotal Supreme Court case that has significantly influenced U.S. citizenship laws. This detailed exploration not only recounts the historical events surrounding Wong Kim Ark but also examines the broader implications of the case on immigration and citizenship in America.

Historical Context

Tracy V. Wilson begins by setting the stage with the backdrop of U.S. citizenship laws post-Civil War. She explains how the 14th Amendment was crafted to redefine citizenship in the wake of the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, which had previously denied citizenship to African Americans.

"[00:02:17] 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."

The discussion highlights the distinction between jus soli (right of the soil) and jus sanguinis (right of blood), emphasizing how the 14th Amendment aimed to solidify citizenship based on birth within U.S. territory irrespective of parental nationality.

Wong Kim Ark's Story

Holly Fry narrates the personal story of Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents during a period marked by severe anti-Chinese sentiment and restrictive immigration laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

"[02:17] Tracy V. Wilson: Long Cam Arc was born in San Francisco, California, probably sometime between 1869 and 1873."

Wong's upbringing in a hostile environment, characterized by racial discrimination and legal restrictions, sets the stage for his eventual legal battle to affirm his U.S. citizenship.

The Legal Battle

Upon returning to the United States in 1895 after a trip to China, Wong Kim Ark was denied re-entry by customs officials who argued that, despite his birth in the U.S., his Chinese heritage excluded him from citizenship under existing laws.

"[02:52] Tracy V. Wilson: Some of Wang's friends filed a writ of habeas corpus to try to get him released."

The Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association took up Wong's case, enlisting attorney Thomas D. Riordan to challenge the denial of his citizenship. After prolonged detention aboard multiple ships, Wong was eventually released on bond in January 1896.

Supreme Court Decision

The case ascended to the Supreme Court, where oral arguments were heard in March 1897. The central question was whether a child born in the United States to Chinese parents, who were subjects of the Emperor of China but had established domicile in the U.S., was automatically a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.

Tracy V. Wilson explains the strategic selection of Wong's case by the Department of Justice as a test case aimed at redefining the boundaries of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.

"[03:10] Tracy V. Wilson: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark in early March of 1897."

On March 28, 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark in a 6-2 decision, affirming that birthright citizenship was protected under the 14th Amendment regardless of parental nationality.

"[03:37] Holly Fry: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong 6 to 2."

Majority Opinion

The majority opinion, authored by the Court, extensively referenced previous cases and emphasized that the 14th Amendment was intended to grant citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, drawing from principles of English common law.

"[04:00] Tracy V. Wilson: ...all persons born are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place and jurisdiction, and not by color or race..."

This interpretation effectively overruled the Dred Scott decision, clarifying that citizenship was not racially exclusive and was based solely on birthplace within U.S. jurisdiction.

Dissenting Opinion

Justices Melville Fuller and John Marshall Harlan dissented, arguing that the 14th Amendment should align with international norms where citizenship is typically determined by parental nationality (jus sanguinis). They feared that the majority's interpretation could lead to unintended exclusions and complications in citizenship law.

"[04:33] Holly Fry: Chief Justice Melville Fuller and Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented, arguing that the Amendment should not be interpreted within a framework of English common law..."

Their concerns highlighted potential conflicts with established international practices and the implications for children born to foreign nationals in the U.S.

Aftermath and Legacy

Following the decision, Wong Kim Ark’s victory solidified the doctrine of birthright citizenship, ensuring that children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents are granted citizenship. However, the episode also touches on the persistent challenges and discriminatory practices that continued to affect Chinese immigrants and their descendants, as seen in Wong’s subsequent legal struggles and the operations of immigration stations like Angel Island.

"[04:50] Tracy V. Wilson: ...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..."

The hosts discuss the enduring relevance of the case, especially in light of modern debates over birthright citizenship and immigration policies.

Ongoing Relevance

The episode connects historical legal battles to contemporary issues, referencing recent executive orders and legal interpretations attempting to redefine citizenship rights. The authors emphasize that while the Supreme Court's decision provided a clear legal framework, societal attitudes and legislative actions have continued to test the boundaries of these citizenship principles.

"[05:35] Tracy V. Wilson: ...most legal and constitutional scholars that have weighed in have said that an Executive Order cannot overrule the Constitution..."

Conclusion

Tracy V. Wilson and Holly Fry wrap up the episode by reflecting on the significance of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark in shaping American citizenship law. They underscore the case's foundational role in affirming that birthright citizenship is a constitutional guarantee, while also acknowledging the ongoing efforts to challenge and interpret its scope in an evolving socio-political landscape.

"[05:50] Tracy V. Wilson: It's 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 have said that an Executive Order cannot overrule the Constitution..."

The episode serves as both a historical recount and a commentary on the dynamic nature of citizenship laws, offering listeners a comprehensive understanding of a landmark case that continues to influence American society.

Notable Quotes

• Tracy V. Wilson at [02:17]:
  "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."

• Tracy V. Wilson at [31:00]:
  "The Supreme Court issued its decision more than a year later, on March 28, 1898, the day after Inauguration Day."

• Tracy V. Wilson at [40:33]:
  "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..."

Final Thoughts

This episode of "Stuff You Missed in History Class" offers an intricate examination of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, highlighting its foundational impact on citizenship law and its lasting implications in today's discussions on immigration and national identity. Through meticulous research and engaging narration, Tracy and Holly provide listeners with both historical insights and contemporary relevance, making complex legal history accessible and meaningful.

For more episodes, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or your preferred podcast platform.