Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Read a random definition: stop-loss order

A quick definition of United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

In 1898, the United States Supreme Court made a decision in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to parents who were Chinese but lived in the United States. The government tried to say that he was not a U.S. citizen because his parents were not citizens. But the Supreme Court said that because he was born in the United States, he was a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen, even if your parents are not citizens. The only exception is if your parents are diplomats or officials from another country.

A more thorough explanation:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court held that citizenship as prescribed in the Fourteenth Amendment extends to U.S.-born children of foreign subjects or citizens who, at the time of the child’s birth, are permanent residents and are carrying on business in the United States. Such children acquire U.S. citizenship at birth, but this does not apply if the parents are in the United States in any diplomatic or official capacity.

For example, Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to laborers of Chinese descent. His parents were Chinese subjects but maintained a permanent domicile in San Francisco. After arriving back from a temporary visit to China in 1895, Wong Kim Ark was detained at the port of San Francisco and refused permission to land. This was due to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which came into force in 1882, in general forbidding Chinese persons from entering the United States and Chinese residents from naturalizing as citizens. Wong Kim Ark contended that he was a U.S. citizen as prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment due to his birth in the United States, and therefore the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him.

The Court first noted that there is no statutory definition of a citizen, except the inclusionary clause in the Fourteenth Amendment stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. The Court therefore relied on common law to interpret this and other clauses concerning citizenship. The main principle that the Court chose to draw was from Calvin’s Case, a 17th century English common law case that held a person born within the territory of a King owes him allegiance, and is therefore the King’s subject. The Court then referenced a series of commentaries and cases in both English and U.S. common law that showed subsequent decisions since Calvin’s Case have been consistent with this principle.

The Court was also interested in the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. It pointed to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was passed by the same Congress that adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, stipulating citizenship for “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” From this the Court reasoned that “the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.”

In conclusion, United States v. Wong Kim Ark established that children born in the United States to foreign parents who are permanent residents and carrying on business in the United States are U.S. citizens at birth, as prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

United States v. Windsor (2013) | United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979)

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
awman i was hopign to come home to a ucla wave
is it too late? its 2pm there
OMG U MEAN A NEW ALBUM OMGG NOW I CAN BE DISTRACTED AGAIN
shaquilleoatmeal
17:14
Nah not a Garmin, Apple watch
We not gonna see splitterus for 4 hrs
HAHAHAHHA
MRS CLITTERUS
JumpySubsequentDolphin
17:17
I’ve barely gotten through chromakopia I can’t deal with another album drop rn
JumpySubsequentDolphin
17:17
this is so stressful
wait but actually is there no wave today
i dont really like chromakopia that much i also havent gotten thru it
JumpySubsequentDolphin
17:18
idk splitty :(
if there's no gtown today that would be so cruel
surely gtown 12 minutes from now
I'm a chromokopia fan, but I don't like Tyler outside of that album
theres the spirit!!
JumpySubsequentDolphin
17:18
@SplitterusClitterus: did you like cmiygl? that’s one of my all time fave albums
Kind of a controversial take. I like experimental albums a lot
babycat
17:19
liking chromakopia and not Tyler's other stuff is crazy to me
JumpySubsequentDolphin
17:19
perhaps im biased bc i saw him live when he performed cmiygl for the first time
i think it is a controverisal take and i usually do too, i also think im giving an opinion too early cuz i habvent finished it at all
yeah seeing him live prob makes it a million times better
Thought I was dead is great raps
2024 such a great year for rap
JumpySubsequentDolphin
17:21
i like noid
even outside the beef. Noid is great too
JumpySubsequentDolphin
17:22
boogies album was the worst ever
JumpySubsequentDolphin
17:22
and i LOVE boogie
JumpySubsequentDolphin
17:23
like i would do anything for one chance w that man but better off alone and me vs myself were both not good
He's never really been my style tbh
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.