Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff You Missed in History Class, a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio. Hello, and Welcome to the podcast. I'm Tracy V.
Speaker 1: Wilson and I'm Holly Frye. Last year, we did an
Speaker 1: episode on artist Tyrus Wong, who was instrumental in developing
Speaker 1: the look and feel for Disney's Bambi, along with creating
Speaker 1: just a prolific amount of other really beautiful work across
Speaker 1: multiple media. Wong had been brought to the United States
Speaker 1: as a child at a time when the Chinese Exclusion
Speaker 1: Act banned immigration to the United States from China, and
Speaker 1: one of the things we talked about in that episode
Speaker 1: was how a Supreme Court case called United States versus
Speaker 1: Wong kim arc had affected how the US could enforce
Speaker 1: the Chinese Exclusion Act because the court had found that
Speaker 1: people who were born in the un to Chinese parents
Speaker 1: were US citizens. When we did that previous episode, I
Speaker 1: said that United States versus Wan kim Ark was another
Speaker 1: topic that was on my episode list, and we got
Speaker 1: a number of emails from listeners saying that they were
Speaker 1: looking forward to getting that one. Obviously, this has become
Speaker 1: newly relevant in light of the Executive Order on Birthright
Speaker 1: citizenship issued by President Donald Trump on inauguration Day, so
Speaker 1: I moved it to the top of the list. I
Speaker 1: just want to note we are currently at a place
Speaker 1: where we are writing and recording episodes a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks before they come out. Honestly, I could not even
Speaker 1: keep up with all the news and commentary about this
Speaker 1: executive order as I was researching and writing the episode,
Speaker 1: and we cannot predict what might happen with it between
Speaker 1: writing and recording the episode and when it actually hits
Speaker 1: your ears in a couple of weeks. This is not
Speaker 1: going into any kind of detail about the executive order
Speaker 1: or the constitutional arguments around the executive order. This is
Speaker 1: about the historical Supreme Court case. So to talk about
Speaker 1: the U. S. Supreme Court's decision in United States versus
Speaker 1: wonkim Ark, we need to work our way back a
Speaker 1: few steps. The Constitution is the supreme law of the
Speaker 1: United States, and it forms the foundation of the federal government.
Speaker 1: When it went into effect in seventeen eighty nine, it
Speaker 1: didn't explicitly define what a citizen was or how a
Speaker 1: person became a citizen. At the same time, it contained
Speaker 1: language that made it clear that citizenship existed and was important.
Speaker 1: Article two, Section one said that quote no person except
Speaker 1: a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United
Speaker 1: States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution
Speaker 1: shall be eligible to the office of President. Article four
Speaker 1: also included the clause quote, the citizens of each State
Speaker 1: shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens
Speaker 1: in the several states. The Constitution didn't define citizen or
Speaker 1: natural born, but for the most part, the way citizenship
Speaker 1: worked in the United States was following ideas from English
Speaker 1: common law. Although there was some nuance around who was
Speaker 1: considered a full citizen and who had the right to vote.
Speaker 1: There was also a basic understanding in English common law
Speaker 1: that people born in the monarch's realm were subjects of
Speaker 1: the monarch. Of course, the United States is a republic.
Speaker 1: It is not supposed to have monarchs or subjects, but
Speaker 1: the basic idea carried over that people born in the
Speaker 1: United States were citizens of the republic. In terms of
Speaker 1: legal theory, this is known as use solely or the
Speaker 1: right of the soil. The idea that citizenship is from
Speaker 1: a person's parents is common in other systems, and it
Speaker 1: is known as eusanguinous or the right of blood. Over
Speaker 1: the decades that followed, various laws and court decisions related
Speaker 1: to US citizenship in some way and to the idea
Speaker 1: of who could be a citizen. One was Dread Scott
Speaker 1: versus Sandford, which was decided in eighteen fifty seven. We
Speaker 1: did a two part episode on this case that came
Speaker 1: out on July sixteenth and eighteenth of twenty eighteen, but briefly,
Speaker 1: Dred Scott and his wife Harriet had been enslaved, and
Speaker 1: when their enslaver died, they were living in free territory.
Speaker 1: The Scots sued for their freedom on the grounds that
Speaker 1: since they were taken to free territory, they were free.
Speaker 1: The US Supreme Court did not answer the question of
Speaker 1: whether that was the case. Instead, it said that the
Speaker 1: issue was outside its jurisdiction, writing quote, a free Negro
Speaker 1: of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this
Speaker 1: country and sold as slaves, is not a citizen within
Speaker 1: the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. That
Speaker 1: meant that the Scots did not have the right to
Speaker 1: sue in federal court. A few years later, multiple states
Speaker 1: seceded from the Union over the issue of slavery, and
Speaker 1: the United States Civil War began in eighteen sixty one.
Speaker 1: After the war ended in eighteen sixty five, part of
Speaker 1: the US government's focus was reuniting and rebuilding the country
Speaker 1: that time known as reconstruction, which also involved trying to
Speaker 1: address the harms of centuries of slavery. The Thirteenth Amendment
Speaker 1: to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude except
Speaker 1: in punishment for a crime, was ratified in December of
Speaker 1: eighteen sixty five. Early the following year, Congress passed the
Speaker 1: Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six, or an Act
Speaker 1: to protect all persons in the United States in their
Speaker 1: civil rights and furnish the means of their vindication. This said,
Speaker 1: in part quote, all persons born in the United States
Speaker 1: and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed,
Speaker 1: are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States,
Speaker 1: and such citizens of every race and color, without regard
Speaker 1: to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except
Speaker 1: as punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been
Speaker 1: duly convicted, shall have the same right in every state
Speaker 1: and territory in the United States to make an enforce
Speaker 1: contracts to sue be parties and give evidence to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold,
Speaker 1: and convey real and personal property, and to full an
Speaker 1: equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security
Speaker 1: of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens,
Speaker 1: and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties,
Speaker 1: and to none other any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or
Speaker 1: custom to the contrary. Notwithstanding, President Andrew Johnson vetoed this
Speaker 1: bill and Congress overrode that veto on April ninth, eighteen
Speaker 1: sixty six. This was the first US law to define citizenship,
Speaker 1: and it overturned dread Scott versus Sandford. But legislators understood
Speaker 1: that laws can be repealed, and if that happened with
Speaker 1: this law, people would use the Supreme Court decision to
Speaker 1: justify trying to bar people with African ancestry from citizenship.
Speaker 1: Constitutional amendments are a lot harder to change than laws are.
Speaker 1: They have to be passed by a two thirds majority
Speaker 1: of Congress and then ratified by three fourths of the
Speaker 1: states before they go into effect, and then they can
Speaker 1: only be repealed if a new amendment goes through that
Speaker 1: same process. So they were working on these constitutional amendments
Speaker 1: after the Civil War, very similar language was added to
Speaker 1: the first section of the fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution,
Speaker 1: quote all persons born or naturalized in the United States,
Speaker 1: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
Speaker 1: United States and of the state wherein they resigned. Today,
Speaker 1: that language is known as the Citizenship Clause. It explicitly
Speaker 1: repudiated the dread Scott decision and added a clear definition
Speaker 1: of who was a US citizen to the Constitution people
Speaker 1: born in the United States or naturalized. There were, of course,
Speaker 1: limited exceptions. It didn't spell out what was meant by
Speaker 1: quote subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but this was generally
Speaker 1: interpreted as referencing a few very specific groups. Diplomats from
Speaker 1: other countries were not under US jurisdiction. They were under
Speaker 1: the jurisdiction of the country they were serving, so any
Speaker 1: children born to them in the United States were not
Speaker 1: US citizens. Also, if a foreign army were to invade
Speaker 1: the United States, or if foreign soldiers were in the
Speaker 1: United States for some other reason, they also would not
Speaker 1: be subject to US jurisdiction, so their children also would
Speaker 1: not be considered citizens. A third group not considered to
Speaker 1: be under US jurisdiction was Indigenous people, who were described
Speaker 1: as Indians not taxed in the Civil Rights Act of
Speaker 1: eighteen sixty six and in other language in the Fourteenth Amendment,
Speaker 1: And there is some critically important context here. The Fourteenth
Speaker 1: Amendment to the Constitution was passed by the Senate in
Speaker 1: eighteen sixty six and ratified two years later. This was
Speaker 1: near the end of what some historians described as the
Speaker 1: treaty making era of federal Indian policy. At a very
Speaker 1: basic level, a treaty is an agreement between two sovereign nations.
Speaker 1: The treaties were talking about in this case were generally
Speaker 1: skewed in favor of the United States, and they were
Speaker 1: connected to ongoing violence and genocide against indigenous people, but
Speaker 1: they still rested on the idea that the United States
Speaker 1: was one sovereign nation and the indigenous nation was another.
Speaker 1: So in the view of the authors of the Civil
Speaker 1: Rights Act of eighteen sixty six and the Fourteenth Amendment,
Speaker 1: indigenous people were first and foremost under the jurisdiction of
Speaker 1: their own sovereign indigenous nation, not of the United States,
Speaker 1: even though the United States had created and imposed systems
Speaker 1: that kept those indigenous nations dependent on the United States
Speaker 1: for their survival. Yeah, there's some really very memey and
Speaker 1: in mine beIN an overly reductive discourse going around the
Speaker 1: internet and social media about this right now. It was
Speaker 1: primarily about tribal sovereignty, even in a limited sense of
Speaker 1: tribal sovereignty that was actually existing when it was written.
Speaker 1: The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was deeply controversial, but
Speaker 1: it's clear that the people who drafted it understood that
Speaker 1: it would grant citizenship to everyone born in the United
Speaker 1: States without regard to race or color, with the exception
Speaker 1: of the very specific groups we just mentioned. That is
Speaker 1: what they intended for it to do. Part of the
Speaker 1: whole point was that we were no longer going to
Speaker 1: have classes of people who by their heredity were excluded
Speaker 1: from citizenship. This had been addressed during congressional debates over
Speaker 1: the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six, which was
Speaker 1: the origin point for this language in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 1: I am going to read some of this heads up.
Speaker 1: There's a term in here that is considered a slur today.
Speaker 1: So Edward Cowan of Pennsylvania asked, quote whether it will
Speaker 1: not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese
Speaker 1: and Gypsies born in this country. Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois,
Speaker 1: who was chair of the committee that drafted the bill,
Speaker 1: answered quote, undoubtedly, before continuing quote, is not the child
Speaker 1: born in this country of German parents a citizen? Cowen answered, quote,
Speaker 1: the children of German parents are citizens, but Germans are
Speaker 1: not Chinese, and then Trumble answered this with quote, the
Speaker 1: law makes no such distinction, and the child of an
Speaker 1: Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child
Speaker 1: of a European. When Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan introduced
Speaker 1: similar language as part of the fourteenth Amendment, he described
Speaker 1: it as declaratory of what he saw as the law
Speaker 1: of the land already. He described it as excluding quote
Speaker 1: for mariners, aliens who belonged to the families of ambassadors
Speaker 1: or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States,
Speaker 1: And after some additional discussion, language was adjusted so that
Speaker 1: it would be clear that it also excluded indigenous people
Speaker 1: for the reasons that we already talked about. Then Cowan
Speaker 1: brought up the same question he'd asked about the Civil
Speaker 1: Rights Act of eighteen sixty six, talking about the subject
Speaker 1: at length. This time, Cowen was answered by John Conness
Speaker 1: of California, which was the state in which most of
Speaker 1: the Chinese immigrants to the United States were actually living.
Speaker 1: Connus said, quote, the proposition before us relates simply in
Speaker 1: that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California,
Speaker 1: and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens.
Speaker 1: We have declared that by law. Now it is proposed
Speaker 1: to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of
Speaker 1: the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I
Speaker 1: voted for the proposition to declare that the children of
Speaker 1: all parentage whatever, born in California should be regarded and
Speaker 1: treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal
Speaker 1: civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Connus
Speaker 1: also went on at length the transcripts of both of
Speaker 1: these comments are very long, before saying, quote, we are
Speaker 1: entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional
Speaker 1: amendment that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall
Speaker 1: be declared by the Constitution of the United States to
Speaker 1: be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before
Speaker 1: the law with others. So, while it's clear that this
Speaker 1: language was intentionally drafted in a way that would include
Speaker 1: the children of Chinese immigrants as citizens. There were also
Speaker 1: plenty of people, including lawmakers, who did not want a
Speaker 1: law or amendment that would do that. The Civil Rights
Speaker 1: Act of eighteen sixty six and the Fourteenth Amendment were
Speaker 1: both passed and ratified over these objections. Under the Reconstruction
Speaker 1: Act of eighteen sixty seven, the states that had seceded
Speaker 1: from the US were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment
Speaker 1: in order to rejoin the Union, and some people argued
Speaker 1: that because of this, the Amendment itself was not valid,
Speaker 1: but again, that was not about the meaning of the
Speaker 1: citizenship clause. There were controversies around other provisions of the
Speaker 1: Fourteenth Amendment as well, but those are outside the scope
Speaker 1: of what we're talking about today. Almost immediately, people who
Speaker 1: did not want this to be in the Constitution started
Speaker 1: trying to find a way to get a legal interpretation
Speaker 1: of subject to the jurisdiction thereof, that would exclude specific
Speaker 1: groups of people from the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Initially,
Speaker 1: a big focus of that was the children of Chinese immigrants.
Speaker 1: That led to the United States versus Wan kim ark
Speaker 1: and we will get into that after a sponsor break.
Speaker 1: Wangham Arc was born in San Francisco, California, probably sometime
Speaker 1: between eighteen sixty nine and eighteen seventy three. Different documents
Speaker 1: give different years. His mother's name was Wee Lee and
Speaker 1: his father was Wangsi Ping. Wangsi Ping was a merchant
Speaker 1: part of a firm called Quang Singing Company, and wankhim
Speaker 1: Ark was born in his parents' home above his father's
Speaker 1: shop on Sacramento Street. It's not clear exactly when the
Speaker 1: Wang family first arrived in the US, although one document
Speaker 1: describes it as quote a long time prior to his birth.
Speaker 1: At the time, immigration between China and the United States
Speaker 1: would have been governed by treaty. If it was after
Speaker 1: July twenty eighth, eighteen sixty eight, that would have been
Speaker 1: the one known in English as the Burlingame Treaty. Among
Speaker 1: other things, this treaty removed restrictions on immigration to the
Speaker 1: US from China and specified that such immigration did not
Speaker 1: confer naturalization upon Chinese citizens in the US or vice versa.
Speaker 1: Chinese people in the United States had always faced racism
Speaker 1: and bigotry, and that escalated as more people came to
Speaker 1: the US from China. This was also tied to things
Speaker 1: like jobs and economic conditions. A lot of Chinese laborers
Speaker 1: had come to the US during the California gold Rush,
Speaker 1: and as long as the gold rush was booming, their
Speaker 1: labor was really welcomed by employers, even if they as
Speaker 1: people were being shunned and disparaged. When the gold rush ended, though,
Speaker 1: they needed to find new work and were seen as
Speaker 1: taking jobs from white workers. The same cycle happened again
Speaker 1: with the Transatlantic Railroad. Chinese workers were an enormous part
Speaker 1: of that effort, but then faced immense hostility after the
Speaker 1: railroad was finished in eight ten teen sixty nine. Chinese
Speaker 1: immigrants were also described as a quote unassimilable race, meaning
Speaker 1: that they were not willing or able to assimilate with
Speaker 1: white communities. Laws and unwritten rules forced Chinese immigrants to
Speaker 1: live in small, isolated enclaves, and then they faced judgment
Speaker 1: and bigotry for continuing to speak Chinese and observe Chinese
Speaker 1: norms and social customs. There was also mob violence against
Speaker 1: these communities, including a massacre in Los Angeles in eighteen
Speaker 1: seventy one and a violent and deadly attack on San
Speaker 1: Francisco's Chinatown on July twenty fourth, eighteen seventy seven. We
Speaker 1: talk a lot more about that in the episode on
Speaker 1: Chai Chong Ping versus the United States, which we just
Speaker 1: ran as a Saturday Classic. We don't know for sure
Speaker 1: why the Wongs decided to return to China, but it
Speaker 1: was after this eighteen seventy seven attack. Living in the
Speaker 1: United States also would have been incredibly isolating for Wee Lee.
Speaker 1: There were only about five thousand Chinese women in the
Speaker 1: entire country, and within the Chinese community, it wasn't considered
Speaker 1: appropriate for women of her station to be out in
Speaker 1: public amongst strangers. Wan Kimark was still a child when
Speaker 1: his family left for China. A few years later, when
Speaker 1: he was in his teens, he returned to the United
Speaker 1: States with an uncle, and he started working as a
Speaker 1: dishwasher and a cook in mining camps in the Sierra
Speaker 1: Nevada Mountains. In eighteen eighty nine, when he was about nineteen,
Speaker 1: he visited China again and he got married there. The
Speaker 1: Chinese community in the United States was, as the statistic
Speaker 1: Tracy just mentioned makes clear, overwhelmingly male, and an anti missagination.
Speaker 1: Laws made it illegal for them to marry people of
Speaker 1: other races. So if he wanted to get married and
Speaker 1: have children, his only real option was to do so
Speaker 1: in China. While his wife was pregnant with their first child,
Speaker 1: Wang returned to the United States, where he could make
Speaker 1: more money to support his family. Wang made another visit
Speaker 1: to China in eighteen ninety four. He had prepared a
Speaker 1: departure statement before leaving the United States, which read quote,
Speaker 1: whereas Wang kim Ark, whose photograph is here too attached,
Speaker 1: is about to depart for China, intending to return to
Speaker 1: the United States, and is entitled to return there too.
Speaker 1: Now Therefore, for the better identification of the said wankim Ark,
Speaker 1: and in order to facilitate his landing upon his said return,
Speaker 1: we the undersigned, do hereby certify that the said wankim
Speaker 1: Ark is well known to us, that he was born
Speaker 1: in the city and County of San Francisco, State of California,
Speaker 1: that his father, Wang Si Ping, was a merchant and
Speaker 1: a member of the firm of Quang Si in Company
Speaker 1: number seven to fifty one Sacramento Street in the said
Speaker 1: city and County of San Francisco, State of California. This
Speaker 1: was signed by three white witnesses who also gave their addresses.
Speaker 1: It was notarized, and it was signed and stamped by
Speaker 1: the inspector on Wang kaim Mark's departure, it was not
Speaker 1: enough when Wang returned to the US in August of
Speaker 1: eighteen ninety five aboard the SS Coptic. John H. Wise,
Speaker 1: described as a quote zealous opponent of Chinese immigration, was
Speaker 1: the collector of customs for the Port of San Francisco,
Speaker 1: and Wise refused to let Wog into the country, claiming
Speaker 1: that he was not a citizen. Wong was detained aboard
Speaker 1: the Coptic. By this point, the United States had banned
Speaker 1: immigration from China under the Chinese Exclusion Act of eighteen
Speaker 1: eighty two. In eighteen eighty eight, the Scott Act had
Speaker 1: also made it illegal for Chinese immigrants who left the
Speaker 1: United States to return. This again is stuff that we
Speaker 1: talked about in our most recent Saturday Classic. In eighteen
Speaker 1: ninety two, the Geary Act had also extended the Chinese
Speaker 1: Exclusion Act for another ten years, and it had specified
Speaker 1: that if a writ of habeas corpus was issued for
Speaker 1: a Chinese person who was denied entry into the United States,
Speaker 1: no bail would be allowed. For that person. The US
Speaker 1: Supreme Court had upheld this as constitutional the following year. Legally,
Speaker 1: Chinese immigrants also could not be naturalized as citizens, so
Speaker 1: if Wang kim Ark had been an immigrant, wise would
Speaker 1: have been legally justified in keeping him out of the US.
Speaker 1: The Chinese Exclusion Act did contain exceptions for diplomats, travelers, merchants, teachers,
Speaker 1: and students, and since Wang was a cook, this didn't
Speaker 1: apply to him. But he wasn't an immigrant. He had
Speaker 1: been born in the United States, so under the citizenship
Speaker 1: clause of the fourteen the Amendment, he was a US citizen.
Speaker 1: Some of Wang's friends filed a writ of habeas corpus
Speaker 1: to try to get him released, and soon the Chinese
Speaker 1: Consolidated Benevolent Association, also called the Chinese Six Companies, stepped in.
Speaker 1: The Chinese Six Companies had started out as a charitable
Speaker 1: and mutual aid organization focused on the needs of Chinese
Speaker 1: immigrants to the US. By this point, their work had
Speaker 1: expanded to include legal defense, including on immigration issues. They
Speaker 1: had attorney Thomas D. Rordon on retainer, and Ryordan started
Speaker 1: working with Wang's case. When the Coptic left Port, Wang
Speaker 1: was moved to another ship, the Gaelic, and then moved
Speaker 1: from the Gaelic to the pe King. Finally, on January third,
Speaker 1: eighteen ninety six, after he had been forced to live
Speaker 1: aboard these ships for almost six months, Judge William Morrow
Speaker 1: ordered him released on two hundred and fifty dollars bond.
Speaker 1: The United's States filed an appeal. And this wasn't just
Speaker 1: about keeping Wang out of the country. Like we said earlier,
Speaker 1: there had always been people who objected to the Fourteenth
Speaker 1: Amendment citizenship clause. Officials like wise and the US Department
Speaker 1: of Justice were looking for a test case that could
Speaker 1: go all the way to the Supreme Court, with the
Speaker 1: hope that the courts would define the phrase subject to
Speaker 1: its jurisdiction as excluding the children of Chinese immigrants born
Speaker 1: in the US. From the DOJ's perspective, Wan kim Ark
Speaker 1: was the perfect test case for this for a number
Speaker 1: of reasons. He had been born in the United States
Speaker 1: to Chinese parents who had lawfully entered the country. Apart
Speaker 1: from visits to China, he had been living in the
Speaker 1: United States, almost all of it in the same neighborhood
Speaker 1: of San Francisco for many years. His wife and children
Speaker 1: were living in China, so there would be no dramatic
Speaker 1: headlines about the federal government breaking up a family if
Speaker 1: he was deported, and also no family left in the
Speaker 1: United States without financial support. Wong had no criminal record,
Speaker 1: and he paid taxes since he was working as a cook.
Speaker 1: They also didn't expect him to have a lot of
Speaker 1: money available to try to mount a legal defense. From
Speaker 1: the perspective of Wong and his supporters, the idea of
Speaker 1: winning a Supreme Court case probably seemed really doubtful. The
Speaker 1: Chinese Six companies had very skilled attorneys, and they had
Speaker 1: had some success with lower courts, but none of the
Speaker 1: cases that had gotten all the way to the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court had been found in their favor. The Supreme Court
Speaker 1: had also issued a decision on a group of cases
Speaker 1: known as the slaughter House Cases in eighteen seventy three.
Speaker 1: That is a whole other topic, but part of the
Speaker 1: decision was that the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth Amendments had
Speaker 1: been written in the context of free and formerly enslaved
Speaker 1: black people, and their protections did not necessarily apply to
Speaker 1: people of other races. We will look at the case
Speaker 1: as it went to the Supreme Court after a sponsor break.
Speaker 1: The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States
Speaker 1: versus Wang kim Ark in early March of eighteen ninety seven.
Speaker 1: Wong's representatives argued that the Constitution was established on the
Speaker 1: principles of English common law that we mentioned earlier in
Speaker 1: the episode. They also argued that interpreting the fourteenth Amendment
Speaker 1: in a way that meant Wong was not a citizen
Speaker 1: would also apply to a lot of other people who
Speaker 1: had been born in the United States, to immigrants from
Speaker 1: other countries, specifically a whole lot of other people who
Speaker 1: were considered to be white. Thomas d Rierdon, who we
Speaker 1: mentioned earlier, spelled this out in an interview that he
Speaker 1: gave during all of this, saying, quote, think of all
Speaker 1: the people in this country who have been born of
Speaker 1: parents who owe allegiance to either Great Britain, Germany, Italy,
Speaker 1: or some other European power. Are all these people to
Speaker 1: be declared not citizens? He said that there might be
Speaker 1: two hundred thousand people in that position, but he also
Speaker 1: called that a low estimate. The United States argument was
Speaker 1: that while Wong had been born in the US, he
Speaker 1: was quote by reason of his race, language, color, and
Speaker 1: dress a Chinese person. They argued that under international law,
Speaker 1: children received the citizenship of their parents, not citizenship based
Speaker 1: on where they were born. That's the sanguinous idea that
Speaker 1: we mentioned earlier in the episode. The Supreme Court issued
Speaker 1: its decision more than a year later, on March twenty eighth,
Speaker 1: eighteen ninety eight, the day after Inauguration Day. The Court
Speaker 1: ruled in favor of Long six to two. There were
Speaker 1: nine justices, but Justice Joseph McKenna didn't participate. He had
Speaker 1: replaced Justice Stephen Field, who had retired after the oral
Speaker 1: arguments but before the decision was issued. The majority opinion
Speaker 1: in this case includes pages and pages and pages of
Speaker 1: earlier decisions related in some way to citizenship, starting with
Speaker 1: people who had been born in the British colonies before
Speaker 1: the Revolutionary War and whether those people had been considered
Speaker 1: British subjects, which they had. There were also cases involving
Speaker 1: people born in England to foreign parents, with those children
Speaker 1: also considered British subjects. Over and over again. These cases
Speaker 1: involved scenarios in which children were considered citizens of the
Speaker 1: place they were born, regardless of their parents' citizenship. This
Speaker 1: opinion even referenced the descent in dread Scott versus Sandford,
Speaker 1: which set in part quote the first section of the
Speaker 1: second Article of the Constitution uses the language a natural
Speaker 1: born citizen. It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired
Speaker 1: by birth. The opinion went on to say, quote, passing
Speaker 1: by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest
Speaker 1: by the fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond
Speaker 1: doubt that before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act
Speaker 1: of eighteen sixty six or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment,
Speaker 1: all white persons at least born within the sovereignty of
Speaker 1: the United States, whether children of citizens or foreigners, accepting
Speaker 1: only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government,
Speaker 1: were native born citizens of the United States. Later on,
Speaker 1: the opinion said, quote as appears upon the face of
Speaker 1: the Amendment, as well as from the history of the times,
Speaker 1: this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon
Speaker 1: citizenship or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by
Speaker 1: the fact of birth within the United States, who would
Speaker 1: thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before
Speaker 1: its adoption. It is declaratory in form and enabling and
Speaker 1: extending in effect. Its main purpose, doubtless was, as has
Speaker 1: been often recognized by this Court, to establish the citizenship
Speaker 1: of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion
Speaker 1: delivered by Chief Justice Tainey in dread Scott versus Sandford,
Speaker 1: and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as
Speaker 1: well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of
Speaker 1: the United States are citizens of the United States. From there,
Speaker 1: it referenced the slaughter House cases as well as other
Speaker 1: cases that had focused on the scope of the reconstruction amendments,
Speaker 1: before saying quote but the opening words, all persons born
Speaker 1: are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place
Speaker 1: and jurisdiction, and not by color or race, as was
Speaker 1: clearly recognized in all the opinions delivered in the Slaughterhouse
Speaker 1: cases above cited. This decision also reiterated the idea that
Speaker 1: at that time indigenous people were not considered to be
Speaker 1: US citizens at birth. The Supreme Court had already heard
Speaker 1: and decided on a case related specifically to this, that
Speaker 1: was Elk versus Wilkins in eighteen eighty four. This case
Speaker 1: could also be a whole episode of its own, but Briefly,
Speaker 1: John Elk was Winnebago and had been born on a reservation,
Speaker 1: but had later renounced his tribal citizenship and begun living
Speaker 1: in a non indigenous community. As summarized in the decision
Speaker 1: of the United States versus Wonkim arc quote, it was
Speaker 1: decided that an Indian born a member of one of
Speaker 1: the Indian tribes within the United States which still existed
Speaker 1: and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States,
Speaker 1: who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken
Speaker 1: up his residence among the white citizens of a state,
Speaker 1: but who did not appear to have been naturalized or
Speaker 1: text or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen,
Speaker 1: either by the United States or by the state, was
Speaker 1: not a citizen of the United States as a person
Speaker 1: born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
Speaker 1: thereof within the meaning of the clause in question. To
Speaker 1: be super clear, this was not saying he could not
Speaker 1: become a citizen, just that he had not been one
Speaker 1: of the United States from birth. The majority opinion ended quote.
Speaker 1: The evident intention and the necessary effect of the submission
Speaker 1: of this case to the decision of the Court upon
Speaker 1: the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination.
Speaker 1: These single questions stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely,
Speaker 1: whether a child born in the United States of parent
Speaker 1: of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth
Speaker 1: are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a
Speaker 1: permanent domicile at residence in the United States and are
Speaker 1: there carrying on business and are not employed in any
Speaker 1: domestic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes
Speaker 1: at the time of his birth a citizen of the
Speaker 1: United States. For the reasons above stated, this Court is
Speaker 1: of the opinion that the question must be answered in
Speaker 1: the affirmative. Chief Justice Melville Fuller and Justice John Marshall
Speaker 1: Harlan dissented. They argued that the amendment should not be
Speaker 1: interpreted within a framework of English common law, but instead
Speaker 1: should rest on international law, in which citizenship more commonly
Speaker 1: came from a person's parents. They also argued that the
Speaker 1: court's interpretation would mean that US citizen's children born while
Speaker 1: their parents were abroad would be considered aliens in the US.
Speaker 1: They cited a small number of earlier cases in which
Speaker 1: someone's citizenship had been decided based on who their parents were.
Speaker 1: The dissenting opinion also argued that the children of Chinese
Speaker 1: immigrants specifically, unlike the children of other immigrants, could not
Speaker 1: be considered to be completely under US jurisdiction. By treaty
Speaker 1: and by law, Chinese immigrants living in the United States
Speaker 1: could not become US citizens. They were still Chinese citizens,
Speaker 1: and in the dissenting justices' opinions, they were loyal to
Speaker 1: the emperor and their children would also be loyal to
Speaker 1: the Emperor because in their religion quote filial piety is
Speaker 1: the first and greatest commandment. In spite of the language
Speaker 1: it contained, in practice, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
Speaker 1: did not mean that everyone in the US actually had
Speaker 1: access to things like due process and equal protection under
Speaker 1: the laws. We have so many episodes about the ongoing
Speaker 1: patterns of discrimination and racism that continued after it was ratified,
Speaker 1: And this court case did not mean that people like
Speaker 1: Won kim Ark were suddenly regarded as US citizens on
Speaker 1: equal footing with white people born in the US. There
Speaker 1: were still plenty of people who wanted an interpretation of
Speaker 1: the Fourteenth Amendment in which that phrase under the jurisdiction
Speaker 1: thereof did not apply to Chinese people. There have been
Speaker 1: ongoing efforts in the decades since, which are still going
Speaker 1: on today to try to get a more narrow reading
Speaker 1: of that jurisdiction language like right now. One of the
Speaker 1: arguments is that the court's opinion notes that Wong's parents
Speaker 1: were lawful permanent residence with a domicile, so the children
Speaker 1: of people who aren't permanent legal residents should not be
Speaker 1: considered citizens. A counter argument to that is, when the
Speaker 1: fourteenth Amendment was drafted, there wasn't really a concept of
Speaker 1: illegal immigration, but it did apply to the children of
Speaker 1: people who had entered the United States illegally, specifically the
Speaker 1: children of people who had been illegally trafficked after the
Speaker 1: US banned the slave trade in eighteen oh eight. I
Speaker 1: know that seems like a super problematic argument from the
Speaker 1: modern perspective, but that was still how it worked. Those
Speaker 1: were people who were considered to have entered the United
Speaker 1: States illegally, their children were citizens, and Chinese immigrants and
Speaker 1: their children were obviously still subjected to harassment, racism, and bigotry,
Speaker 1: and this affected Wang Kim Mark and his family directly.
Speaker 1: In nineteen oh one, Wang was arrested and nearly deported
Speaker 1: from El Paso, Texas. While trying to cross back into
Speaker 1: the United States from Mexico, he had to convince authorities
Speaker 1: that he was a citizen. Because Wang was a citizen
Speaker 1: by law, his children born in China were also US citizens,
Speaker 1: and ultimately three of his sons were able to enter
Speaker 1: the United States, but each of them faced detainment and
Speaker 1: interrogations while trying to do so. An immigration station was
Speaker 1: built at Angel Island in nineteen ten, and that's where
Speaker 1: people mostly from China and other parts of Asia, were
Speaker 1: put through intense questioning that was designed to try to
Speaker 1: keep them out of the United States. They also had
Speaker 1: to go through humiliating physical exams. We talked more about
Speaker 1: Angel Island and these interrogations in our episode on Tyrus Wong.
Speaker 1: One of wangkim Ark's sons, Wang Yuk Fun, was refused
Speaker 1: entry into the United States and deported back to China
Speaker 1: in nineteen eleven because investigators at Angel Island claimed his
Speaker 1: answers had too many discrepancies from his fathers. Again, these
Speaker 1: interrogations were made to be unpassable. Wang Yuk Su was
Speaker 1: also denied entry into the United States in nineteen twenty four,
Speaker 1: but was eventually allowed in after wangkim Ark testified on
Speaker 1: his behalf. This is also connected to the paper suns
Speaker 1: that we talked about in our episode on Tyris Wong,
Speaker 1: people who claimed to be the children of US citizens
Speaker 1: or born in the US, but were really born in
Speaker 1: China to Chinese parents. Wang Yuk Siu had been presented
Speaker 1: as wangkim Ark's citizen's son, but in nineteen sixty, as
Speaker 1: part of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service's Chinese Confession program,
Speaker 1: Wang Yuk Su admitted to being a paper son. Wangkim
Speaker 1: Ark had died by this point. He had returned to
Speaker 1: China in nineteen thirty one, saying he intended to return
Speaker 1: to the US, but he didn't return, and we don't
Speaker 1: really know what happened to him after this or his
Speaker 1: thoughts about presenting Wang Yuk Su as his paper son.
Speaker 1: The United States also continued to ban immigration from China
Speaker 1: after this. In nineteen you know four, the Chinese Exclusion
Speaker 1: Acts were renewed, and definitely they were not formally repealed
Speaker 1: until December seventeenth, nineteen forty three, which is also when
Speaker 1: it became legal for Chinese immigrants to be naturalized as
Speaker 1: US citizens also because the citizenship status of Indigenous people
Speaker 1: has come up several times in this episode. The Indian
Speaker 1: Citizenship Act was signed into law in nineteen twenty four.
Speaker 1: It read quote be it enacted by the Senate and
Speaker 1: House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Speaker 1: Congress assembled that all non citizen Indians born within the
Speaker 1: territorial limits of the United States be and they are
Speaker 1: hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, provided
Speaker 1: that the granting of such citizenship shall not, in any manner,
Speaker 1: impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to
Speaker 1: tribal or other property. Indigenous people themselves had a range
Speaker 1: of opinions on being granted US citizenship, including some tribes
Speaker 1: that lobbied heavily against this law. Many of the white
Speaker 1: people who advocated for it were motivated by the idea
Speaker 1: that it would help reduce corruption within the Bureau of
Speaker 1: Indian Affairs, not by the well being or wishes of
Speaker 1: the Indigenous people. It would apply to. The executive order
Speaker 1: that we mentioned at the top of the show doesn't
Speaker 1: mention the Indian Citizenship Act, or Elk versus Wilkins, or
Speaker 1: the idea of birthright citizenship. For Indigenous people specifically, but
Speaker 1: a Justice Department filing in response to a motion for
Speaker 1: a restraining order against the executive order does. That filing
Speaker 1: cites Elk versus Wilkins and United States versus Wankamark in
Speaker 1: its arguments that the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause applies only
Speaker 1: to the children of US citizens and legal permanent residents
Speaker 1: of the US. This has led to concerns that there
Speaker 1: might be an attempt to end birthright citizenship for Indigenous people.
Speaker 1: My basic understanding of this is that there is more
Speaker 1: consensus at this point than a century ago that Indigenous
Speaker 1: people would like to have US citizenship as well as
Speaker 1: the citizenship of their indigenous nations. Again, it was impossible
Speaker 1: to keep up with every aspect of what was happening
Speaker 1: with this executive order while this episode was being researched
Speaker 1: and recorded, but most legal and constitutional scholars that have
Speaker 1: weighed in have said that an executive order cannot overrule
Speaker 1: the Constitution. Instead, what is likely to happen is that
Speaker 1: this executive order will lead to another test case that
Speaker 1: will need to make its way to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: as United States versus wan kim Ark, did I have
Speaker 1: some very lighthearted is not the right word. It is
Speaker 1: listener mail. That's not about anything of consequence. Really, it's
Speaker 1: just for fun to close this sound yay. This is
Speaker 1: from Randall. Randall wrote in after our recent Unearthed installments
Speaker 1: where we talked about archaeologists leaving messages and bottles that
Speaker 1: their archaeological sites for future archaeologists defined and Randall wrote Hill,
Speaker 1: I was interested in the messages found in bottles. We
Speaker 1: are restoring a seventeen eighty two house. Previous owners stripped
Speaker 1: three rooms of their plaster and lath. We are putting
Speaker 1: back the lath and replastering with lime plaster. Maybe a
Speaker 1: substance you should look into, since it is a really
Speaker 1: fascinating product. It cures by capturing carbon. We have seen
Speaker 1: some articles of people finding shoes hidden in their old houses.
Speaker 1: Apparently it was to ward off evil. Before I closed
Speaker 1: the final wall, I stuck in a pair of my
Speaker 1: old sneakers. They are size sixteen, double wide, so I
Speaker 1: figured they will ward off a bunch of evil and
Speaker 1: give future renovators something to talk about. I love your podcast, Randall. Randal,
Speaker 1: I love this story. They're his. I'm just talking specifically
Speaker 1: about North America, but other places too, Like there have
Speaker 1: been traditions of putting all kinds of things in walls
Speaker 1: and up chimneys as an idea of like warding off
Speaker 1: evil and protecting the house and things like that. And
Speaker 1: so I just love the idea of centuries from now
Speaker 1: an archaeologist being like, is this a thing that people
Speaker 1: were doing in the year in ten. There's a great
Speaker 1: misinterpretation where they're like, this house must have been full
Speaker 1: of evil spirits because they procured an extra large shoe.
Speaker 1: I love that too. I'm a fan of putting surprises
Speaker 1: in construction. Yeah, you have done it in our house
Speaker 1: in several places. Yes. I just generally like the idea
Speaker 1: of far in the future. If you know, if in
Speaker 1: some way your home specifically, you know, at some time
Speaker 1: far in the future than having been through a series
Speaker 1: of additional owners, that your house as is becomes an
Speaker 1: archaeological site and I think becomes like the focus of
Speaker 1: archaeological study. Yeah, they're going to be like, there was
Speaker 1: clearly some sort of religion around this figure, and we
Speaker 1: don't understand it, but there's incredibly important anyway. Anyway, thanks
Speaker 1: for giving us a moment to laugh. Randal If you
Speaker 1: would like to send us a note about this or
Speaker 1: any other podcast, we're at History Podcasts at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 1: If you have not subscribed to the show, you can
Speaker 1: do that. We're on the iHeartRadio app and really wherever
Speaker 1: else you like to get your podcasts. Stuff you missed
Speaker 1: in History Class is a production of iHeartRadio. For more
Speaker 1: podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
Speaker 1: wherever you listen to your favorite shows.