Talk:United States v. Wong Kim Ark/Archives/2015

Incorrect history section - Background.

Hatting off racist, sovereign citizen garbage - User:GregJackP 19:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is clearly wrong with regard to the premise of jus soli birth being citizenship. It is true that this was English law, but only because England was a monarchy at the time. Our Constitution established the U.S. as a REPUBLIC, and in a republic, citizenship is obtained only in two ways: By inheritance (jus sanguinis - from a citizen parent), and by petition (which we call naturalization of aliens). Republics lack jus soli citizenship. Throughout history, there have been only two other republics: Ancient Rome (before 44 B.C.E.) and Switzerland. Neither of them have jus soli citizenship; rightfully so. Monarchies and dictatorships have jus soli because everything (and everyone) created within the country is deemed by default to be the property of the monarch or state. The United States did NOT inherit English law in the area of citizenship because the two forms of government involved were radically different in this area. Note that our 14th Amendment did not use the word "slave" in recognizing the former slaves as citizens. It was necessary because this is a deviation from the citizenship rules for a republic. It created a limited jus soli citizenship for those persons born in country who were otherwise STATELESS. The majority of slaves, having been born here, were stateless, but freed slaves born outside the U.S. were NOT granted U.S. citizenship (but reverted to citizenship from their countries of origin). This did not extend to the Native Americans because they were considered citizens of their respective tribes and thus possessed a "foreign allegiance." At NO TIME in our history was the child of an alien born in the U.S. a U.S. citizen because all countries (except Norway) claim the children of their citizens as their citizens; thus they all fail the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause. The article's text, in the following section discussing the 14th Amendment, makes it clear that the Amendment was NOT changing the law with respect to children of aliens - that such children themselves would be aliens. The argument in the above clearly explains how that was preserved, while the article text contradicts this by claiming that the U.S. had jus soli citizenship rights before the Amendment. Therefore, it is clear that the history section of the article is disingenuous to the truth and the status/operation of citizenship rules of a republic that is the United States. If the U.S. really had jus soli citizenship, Mr. Wong would have been recognized as a citizen when he presented himself at the San Francisco Port of Entry when returning from China, and there would have been no controversy for the Court to settle. The Amendment changes the rules for citizenship ONLY WITH REGARD TO PERSONS OTHERWISE BORN STATELESS. The children of aliens remained aliens -- just as BEFORE the Amendment was enacted. The dissenting opinion is actually the legally correct one. The Court lacks the authority to deny the meaning of the plain language of the Amendment. Based on the above, the article needs to be rewritten. Leaving it as is constitutes a distortion of the facts. 71.106.164.225 (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Native Americans

In view of the Indian Citizenship Act, I don't think it's correct to say that the Court in Wong Kim Ark "ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen" in the lead. The Indian Citizenship Act gave citizenship to over 125,000 Native Americans who had been born in the United States.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Indians are still only U.S. citizens because of an act of Congress. That act could be repealed with no recourse to the tribes. GregJackP Boomer! 07:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • User:GregJackP, whether you're correct or incorrect, the fact remains that 125,000 people refute the statement in our lead that "practically everyone" became a citizen by birth per Wong Kim Ark. After all, 125,000 people are not practically no one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• In 1924, that 125K was 0.1% of the U.S. population. One-tenth of one percent means that 99.9% did become a citizen by birth, which is "practically everyone." GregJackP Boomer! 07:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the notion that "practically everyone" in the United States circa 1868 (when the 14th Amendment was adopted) was not a Native American. It's wrong and misleading, and the Court in this case said no such thing. Incidentally, in 1868, the total U.S. population was about 35 million and there were about 290,000 members of tribes (and thus not taxed by white people). That's less than 1%, but it's not "practically no one".Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not wrong and misleading, what the Court said (exactly) was "Beyond question, by that act, national citizenship was conferred directly upon all persons in this country, of whatever race (excluding only 'Indians not taxed'), who were born within the territorial limits of the United States. . . ." Wong Kim Ark, at 681-82. " It was clear to the Wong Kim Ark Court that the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins case excluded Indians from citizenship, as did the 14th Amendment. Ninety-nine percent plus is "practically everyone" and the number of Indians were "practically no one." GregJackP Boomer! 08:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The words "by that act" refer to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, not to the 14th Amendment which did not take effect until 1868. And even that exact quote you recite made explicit that not all persons born in the U.S. became citizens.

The last paragraph of the decision is very clear about what it decided: "The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."

The lead sentence of this article says: "United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen." I doubt that a single one of the judges would have signed off on such an opinion. Moreover, it is vague. Does "practically everyone" mean practically everyone who were then in the United States, or does it mean practically everyone who are in the United States at any time? The latter would obviously be incorrect if, for example, the population of Native American tribes returns to pre-Colombian levels while the population of white people is decimated by disease or war.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

99.9% is practically everyone. GregJackP Boomer! 04:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Are there practically no Americans on active duty in the U.S. Navy? Anyway, the lead is improved now, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)