United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

Resources

Related Cases: Elk v. Wilkins (1884)

Elk v. Wilkins is an 1884 Supreme Court case that concerned the citizenship of Native Americans. It similarly focused on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was brought after a Winnebago Native American man named John Elk tried to register to vote on April 6, 1880, and was refused by Charles Wilkins, the registrar of voters of the Fifth ward of the City of Omaha, Nebraska. Elk was born on a reservation within U.S. territory but later renounced his tribal affiliation and moved to Omaha, claiming birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment (Elk v. Wilkins 95). In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that “an Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the government of the United States, who has voluntarily separated himself from his tribe, and taken up his residence among the White citizens of a state, but who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution” (94). In other words, the court argued that despite being born in the United States, Elk was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe and, consequently, was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Thus, United States v. Wong Kim Ark guaranteed the right of birthright citizenship regardless of race, except in the case of Native Americans, who were barred from birthright citizenship until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act on June 2, 1924 (“Indian Citizenship Act of 1924”).

                                                                               Works Cited

“14th Amendment.” Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv. Accessed 7 Dec. 2022.

Application of Wong Kim Ark for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Oct. 1895). National Archives, https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18556852?objectPage=2. Accessed 7 Dec. 2022.

Berger, Bethany R. “Birthright Citizenship on Trial: Elk v. Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.” Cardozo Law Review, vol. 37, no. 4, Apr. 2016, pp. 1185-1258. HeinOnline, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/cdozo37&i=1275.

Law Professor Bethany Berger juxtaposes the histories of Elk v. Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, highlighting the dynamic role of citizenship in both cases. She underscores the discrepancies between the rulings and the subsequent action taken by the United States, arguing that the two cases exemplify the power of the government to subsume the territory and sovereignty of Indigenous people and control and exclude persons they did not want in the country. Berger’s innovative comparison offers a unique perspective on the significance of Elk v. Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, providing critical insight into the dynamics of race, citizenship, and the law in the United States.

Brekke, David. “Boomtown, 1870s: ‘The Chinese Must Go!’” KQED, 15 Feb. 2015, https://www.kqed.org/news/10429550/boomtown-history-2b.

“Chinese Exclusion Act (1882).” National Archives, 17 Feb. 2022, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act.

“Civil Rights Act of 1866, ‘An Act to Protect All Persons in the United States in Their Civil Rights, and Furnish the Means of Their Vindication.’” Constitution Center, https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/civil-rights-act-of-1866-april-9-1866-an-act-to-protect-all-persons-in-the-united-states-in-their-civil-rights-and-furnish-the-means-of-their-vindication. Accessed 10 Dec. 2022.

“Decision Makes a Precedent: Secretary Metcalfe Says That Birth in America Does Not Guarantee One Citizenship.” San Francisco Chronicle, 19 July 1904, p. 5. Newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/image/27549506/.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856). Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/. Accessed  6 Dec. 2022.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2022.

“Extension of the Chinese Exclusion Act (1904).” Immigration History, https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1904-extension-of-the-chinese-exclusion-act/. Accessed 11 Dec. 2022.

Foner, Eric. The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution. W. W. Norton, 2019.

Form 430 - Application of Alleged American-Born Chinese for Preinvestigation of Status by Wong Kim Ark (17 Oct. 1917). National Archives, https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18556183?objectPage=2. Accessed 29 Nov. 2022.

Frost, Amanda. “‘By Accident of Birth’: The Battle over Birthright Citizenship After United States v. Wong Kim Ark.” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, vol. 32, no. 1, 2021, pp. 38-76, http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/7583.

Legal scholar Amanda Frost argues that birthright citizenship has never been fully accepted as policy or law. She details the origins of birthright citizenship in the United States before explaining the facts of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in unparalleled detail. Frost then discusses examples of the government’s attempts to undermine or criticize birthright citizenship, supporting her argument by drawing parallels between anti-immigration efforts that occurred in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling and xenophobic sentiments expressed by political leaders like Donald J. Trump. Frost’s article brings the experiences of Wong Kim Ark to life and provides a dynamic illustration of the shifting dynamics of birthright citizenship in the United States.

“Geary Act (1892).” Immigration History, https://immigrationhistory.org/item/geary-act/. Accessed 7 Dec. 2022.

Glen, Patrick J. “Wong Kim Ark and Sentencia Que Declara Constitucional La Ley General de Migración 285-04 in Comparative Perspective: Constitutional Interpretation, Jus Soli Principles, and Political Morality.” The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, vol. 39, no. 1, 2007, pp. 67-109. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40176768.

Hijar, Katherine. “Chinese Women, Immigration, and the First U.S. Exclusion Law: The Page Act of 1875.” National Park Service, 2 Aug. 2022, https://www.nps.gov/safr/blogs/chinese-women-immigration-and-the-first-u-s-exclusion-law-the-page-act-of-1875.htm#:~:text=Section%203%20of%20the%20Page,for%20lewd%20and%20immoral%20purposes.%22.

“Historical Highlights: Civil Rights Bill of 1866.” History, Art & Archives: United States House of Representatives, https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/The-Civil-Rights-Bill-of-1866. Accessed 10 Dec. 2022.

“History of Law: The Fourteenth Amendment.” Tulane University Law School, 9 July 2017, https://online.law.tulane.edu/articles/history-of-law-the-fourteenth-amendment.

Identification Photograph on Affidavit “In the Matter of Wong Kim Ark, Native Born Citizen of the United States.” Filed with the Immigration Service in San Francisco Prior to His May 19 Departure on the Steamer “China.” The Document Refers to US District Court- San Francisco Admiralty (Habeas Corpus) Case 11198. National Archives, https://catalog.archives.gov/id/296479. Accessed 15 Nov. 2022.

“Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.” Immigration History, https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1924-indian-citizenship-act/. Accessed 11 Dec. 2022.

Jacobsohn, Gary J. Apple of Gold: Constitutionalism in Israel and the United States. Princeton University Press, 2017.

“Jus Soli Law and Legal Definition.” US Legal, https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/jus-soli/. Accessed 6 Dec. 2022.

Kendi, Ibram X. “The Promise and Peril of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.” Perspectives on History, vol. 54, no. 7, 11 Oct. 2016, https://www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/october-2016/the-promise-and-peril-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1866.

Kim, Claire Jean. “The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans.” Politics and Society, vol. 27, no. 1, Mar. 1999, pp. 105–38, https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329299027001005.

Koh, Jennifer. “Race, Immigration Law, and Christianity: Reflections and Tensions Raised by United States v. Wong Kim Ark.” Political Theology, vol. 23, no. 5, May 2022, pp. 471-481, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4104768#.

Lee, Erika. At America’s Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882-1943. United Kingdom, University of North Carolina Press, 2004, Google Books, https://books.google.com/books?id=BDqUb8UiCIkC.

In her chapter, “Enforcement of the Exclusion Laws,” Professor Erika Lee provides an insightful description of the circumstances that led Wong Kim Ark’s case to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. This project was significantly aided by her discussion of Wong’s detainment and his case in the California District Court. Lee also provides a shrewd illustration of life for Chinese Americans and immigrants before and in the wake of the ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Long, Xiang. “United States v. Wong Kim Ark.” Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/united_states_v._wong_kim_ark. Accessed 10 Dec. 2022.

Marinari, Maddalena. “The 1921 and 1924 Immigration Acts a Century Later: Roots and Long Shadows.” Journal of American History, vol. 109, no. 2, Sept. 2022, pp. 271-283, https://academic.oup.com/jah/article/109/2/271/6747696.

Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82 (1934). Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/291/82/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2022.

“Nationality Act of 1790.” Immigration History, https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/#:~:text=and%20establish%20standards%20and%20procedures,to%20%E2%80%9Cfree%20white%20persons.%E2%80%9D. Accessed 7 Dec. 2022.

Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958). Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/356/129/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2022.

“Page Law (1875).” Immigration History, https://immigrationhistory.org/item/page-act/. Accessed 11 Dec. 2022.

Reuters Staff. “Trump Says He Is Seriously Looking at Ending Birthright Citizenship.” Reuters, 21 Aug. 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump/trump-says-he-is-seriouslylooking-at-ending-birthright-citizenship-idUSKCN1VB21B.

Rodgers, H. A. “California—The Chinese Agitation in San Francisco—A Meeting of the Workingmen’s Party on the Sand Lots.” Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, 20 Mar. 1880, p. 41. Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/1EJaAAAAYAAJ/page/n224/mode/1up.

Salyer, Lucy. “Wong Kim Ark: The Contest Over Birthright Citizenship.” Immigrant Stories, edited by David A. Martin and Peter H. Schuck, Foundation Press, 2005, pp. 51-86.

“Scott Act of 1888.” Immigration History, https://immigrationhistory.org/item/scott-act/#:~:text=Congress%20extended%20domestic%20authority%20over,Return%20outside%20the%20United%20States. Accessed 11 Dec. 2022.

Smith, Marian L. “Race, Nationality, and Reality: INS Administration of Racial Provisions in U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law Since 1898.” Prologue Magazine, vol. 34, no. 2, Summer 2002, https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2002/summer/immigration-law-1#:~:text=Congress%20went%20further%20by%20amending,foundation%20for%20future%20confusion%20over.

“Supreme Court Favored Chinese.” David City News, 30 Jun. 1898, p.2. Newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/image/673120325/.

Sworn Departure Statement of Wong Kim Ark (5 Nov. 1894). National Archives, https://catalog.archives.gov/id/296480. Accessed 29 Nov. 2022.

“The Force of ‘Sympathy.’” The New York Times, 25 July 1877, p. 4, https://www.nytimes.com/1877/07/25/archives/the-force-of-sympathy.html.

Thomas, Brook. “China Men, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and the Question of Citizenship.” American Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 4, 1998, pp. 689-717. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30042165.

Professor Brook Thomas offers an understanding of the middle chapter of Maxine Hong Kingston’s book China Men that is grounded within the historical context of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Thomas’ detailed analysis of the case’s majority and dissenting opinions was particularly useful for this project.

United States, Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. Table 53-Number of Chinese and Japanese in 1910, 1900, 1890, and 1880, by divisions and state. Government Printing Office, 1914, https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/03322287no71-80ch6.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec. 2022.

United States, Department of State Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs 1100 Appendix H. https://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/04/21/state.department.citizenship.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec. 2022. 

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/. Accessed 18 Nov. 2022.

Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927). Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/657/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2022.

Woodworth, Marshall B. “Who Are Citizens of the United States? Wong Kim Ark Case.” American Law Review, vol. 32, 1898, pp. 554-561, Google Books, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_American_Law_Review/_kgZAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0.