In Supreme Court fight over birthright citizenship, a great-grandson hears echoes of 1898

(This March 29 story is repeated without any changes to the text)

By Andrew Chung

March 29 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s challenge to the longstanding rule that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen, with only narrow exceptions, is reminiscent of a similar dispute off the coast of San Francisco more than a century ago.

In the late 19th century, amid a fervent wave of anti-Chinese sentiment, the U.S. government tried to prevent a young man named Wong Kim Ark from re-entering the country after returning by steamboat from a trip to China, his parents’ homeland, arguing that although he had been born in the United States, he was not a citizen.

On March 28, 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to people, including people like Wong whose parents were foreign-born.

A WORRY CONCERNS

His great-grandson, now living in the San Francisco area, worries that the principles enshrined in his ancestor’s cause may be in danger.

“Wong Kim Ark knew he was American and demanded that his citizenship be recognized. He was willing to stand up,” Norman Wong, 76, said in an interview. “Wong Kim Ark didn’t make the rule. He approved the rule.”

That 128-year-old understanding will be up for debate again Wednesday at the Supreme Court, when the justices hear arguments over the legality of Trump’s executive order that would deny automatic citizenship to babies born in the United States where neither parent is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Despite being unaware of his great-grandfather’s legacy for most of his life, Norman Wong has since spent years learning about it, visiting his family’s ancestral village in China last year. The retired carpenter said the Trump administration is offering “fake arguments and fake reasons” to achieve a dangerous goal that runs counter to the American dream.

Trump’s Supreme Court challenge “was decided 128 years ago,” Wong said. “We’re just reconsidering.”

The Republican president’s directive, issued on his first day back in office in January 2025 as part of a sweeping crackdown on immigration, continued threats to restrict birthright citizenship that Trump has been making for years.

The administration has said automatic citizenship encourages illegal immigration and leads to “birth tourism,” in which foreigners travel to the United States to give birth and provide citizenship to their children. Critics call Trump’s directive a clearly unconstitutional action rooted in racially discriminatory anti-immigrant views.

Trump’s order would refuse to recognize the citizenship of babies of immigrants who are in the country illegally or whose presence is legal but temporary, such as college students or those on work visas.

The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has repeatedly allowed Trump to temporarily expand mass deportation measures while legal challenges are pending, such as ending humanitarian protections for immigrants or allowing them to be deported to countries with which they have no ties.

Last year, the court gave Trump his first victory on birthright citizenship with a decision that restricted federal judges’ power to restrict presidential policies nationwide. Although this decision stemmed from the administration’s challenge to judicial decisions declaring the birthright citizenship directive unconstitutional, it did not resolve the legality of Trump’s action; Wednesday’s trial is expected to do just that.

uphill battle

Many legal experts have said the administration faces an uphill battle trying to reinterpret the 14th Amendment, given the precedent involving Wong Kim Ark as well as the country’s long tradition of birthright citizenship.

The Nationality Clause of the 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War of 1861-1865, which ended slavery in the United States. The court followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. 1857, which declared that people of African descent could never become U.S. citizens. Sandford overturned his infamous decision.

“Every method and source of Constitutional interpretation confirms that it applies to anyone born in the United States, with extremely narrow common law exceptions,” University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost said. he said.

The primary exception concerns children born to foreign diplomats who do not have citizenship by birth.

Trump’s Justice Department alleges that for generations, the U.S. government has mistakenly granted citizenship to people who do not qualify, namely people who are there illegally or temporarily.

If the Supreme Court upholds this opinion, the practical consequences would be enormous, affecting the legal status of as many as 250,000 babies born in the United States each year by some estimates and requiring millions of families to prove their newborns’ citizenship status.

Although Trump’s directive specifically targets babies born after it went into effect, critics have raised concerns that it could later be applied retroactively.

“While the decision is formally forward-looking … the arguments the government makes about what it claims the Constitution means cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions of other people who have lived their entire lives as American citizens, potentially going back generations,” said Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represents those opposing Trump’s directive.

“Beyond that, I think a ruling in favor of the government here would signal open season on challenges to citizenship for American citizens, even those whose parents are non-citizens in those particular categories of those targeted in Trump’s directive,” Wofsy said.

The lawsuit before the Supreme Court challenging Trump’s decision was filed in New Hampshire by the ACLU on behalf of parents and children whose citizenship would be threatened. U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante allowed plaintiffs in that case to move forward en masse, allowing Trump’s order to be blocked “on a national level.”

THE Saga OF WONG KIM ARK

When Wong Kim Ark, a cook in his 20s, returned from a months-long trip to China in 1895, customs officials in San Francisco declared him a noncitizen. Although he was born in the city’s Chinatown neighborhood, authorities said he was because his parents were Chinese citizens and so he was ineligible for entry because of an 1882 law called the Chinese Exclusion Act that restricted Chinese immigration and citizenship.

The Supreme Court rejected the government’s bid to impose limits on citizenship, citing the 14th Amendment’s language granting citizenship only to those born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

In its 6-2 ruling, the court said the latter phrase meant excluding children of foreign diplomats and occupying enemies from citizenship from birth (which did not apply to Wong Kim Ark) and “not to impose any new restrictions on citizenship.” Native Americans were also among the exceptions, but were granted citizenship by law in 1924.

Doing so, the court added, “would amount to the denial of citizenship to thousands of people of English, Scottish, Irish, German, or other European descent who have always been recognized and treated as citizens of the United States.”

The Trump administration has argued that its directive complies with both the 14th Amendment and the 1898 resolution because it allows citizenship for some immigrants with legal “residence” in the United States, including permanent residents.

Citing the court’s decision in the case, the administration said that at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth, his parents had permanent residence and domicile in the United States. According to the administration, those who are in the United States only temporarily or illegally do not meet this standard.

“I don’t think it’s fair to say that Wong Kim Ark alone (as a legal precedent) decides the question of citizenship status for temporary visitors or children born here illegally,” said University of Minnesota law professor Ilan Wurman.

Wurman said that precedent “is strictly speaking focused on residential parents in law,” adding: “There is good language in this case that supports both sides of this case.”

FAMILY HERITAGE

Norman Wong, who like his ancestors was born in San Francisco, now has the chance to warn others about the Trump administration’s quest to limit citizenship.

“I didn’t see the executive order as an end. I saw it as a beginning that they would strip away citizenship until they eliminated the people they didn’t want. And they’ll always have a reason, you know?” said Wong. “We’re talking about the soul of America as a people.”

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)