The young man was born in San Francisco to parents of Chinese descent. After returning from a visit to his ancestral home via the steamship Coptic, he was detained by customs agents and refused entry to the United States. Federal prosecutors claimed he should be sent back to China because he wasn't a U.S. citizen and was barred under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
But on this date 113 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government was wrong about Wong Kim Ark. He was indeed a U.S. citizen by virtue of his birth 25 years earlier on American soil, despite the fact that his parents were neither citizens nor eligible for citizenship.
Why is this decision important today?
Because the notion of birthright citizenship -- guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and upheld by the 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark -- is once again a flash point in our volatile debate over immigration.
Derided as "anchor babies" and even "terror babies," the children of today's undocumented immigrants are under attack by a coalition of state lawmakers backed by the nativist lobby. These lawmakers, under the umbrella of State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI), claim that birthright citizenship was never intended to and should not apply to these children. They recently announced a campaign to enact a series of state laws that would try to remove this citizenship right - in effect, rewriting the 14th Amendment.
They've raised the specter of "hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens ... crossing the U.S. borders to give birth or exploit their child." SLLI founder Daryl Metcalfe, a Pennsylvania lawmaker, warned of an "invasion" of immigrants responsible for "identity theft, property theft, drug running, human trafficking, sexual assaults, murder, increased gang activity, terrorism and ... many other clear and present dangers."
We've heard it all before.
When the 14th Amendment was debated in Congress in 1866, there was no shortage of angst over the fact that it would apply to the children of immigrants who were not U.S. citizens. In language remarkably similar in tone to that employed by today's nativists, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania warned that birthright citizenship could result in "a flood of immigration of the Mongol race." Millions of Chinese might pour unimpeded into California, where they could quickly outnumber - and outcompete - native Americans. Thieving, swindling, trespassing Gypsies could overrun the country, and "people from Borneo, man-eaters or cannibals, if you please" would be given free rein to wreak their havoc in our country.
Sen. John Conness of California rose in defense of the amendment. He conceded that "it may be very good capital in an electioneering campaign to declaim against the Chinese." But he pointed out that they were an "industrious people ... now passing from mining into other branches of industry," including farming and "building the Pacific railroad." Their children, and also those of Gypsies born in this country, should be regarded as U.S. citizens, he said. No person "claiming to have a high humanity" could take a contrary position.
Congress approved the amendment, and it became part of the Constitution in 1868 after being ratified by the states. One of three Reconstruction-era amendments, it begins: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The Supreme Court ruling 30 years later reaffirmed its inclusion of children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. Today, the amendment enshrines and protects bedrock principles of our democracy, guaranteeing equality and due process to all.
The campaign to rewrite the 14th Amendment is gaining little traction. Hoping to bring the issue before the Supreme Court once again, lawmakers have introduced bills in at least seven states. So far, none have passed, and bills have died in Arizona, Mississippi and South Dakota. That's a good sign.
But it doesn't mean the nativist lobby will back off its fearmongering campaign.
The reality is that this concern over "anchor babies" -- that hordes of immigrants are streaming across the border to have babies -- is based on a complete fallacy. A study by the Pew Hispanic Center found that the vast majority of children of undocumented parents were born at least a year after their parents arrived.
Besides, most immigrants come to the United States to escape poverty and find jobs. As President Obama said in El Salvador recently, more economic opportunity in that country would go a long way toward ensuring "that people don't feel like they have to head north to provide for their families."
But the campaign against immigrants has never been about facts. As Sen. Conness noted in 1866, it's about politics.
Follow J. Richard Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/splcenter
Howard Foster: Time to End Birthright Citizenship?
So what if a majority of these babies were born here, if their parents obeyed the law they would not be US citizens. What does it matter if a thief uses a knife or a gun to steal your money?
Published 08 August 2010 02:28 AM
"Dallas County's public hospital is ground zero in the growing controversy over babies born to illegal immigrants.
While members of Congress argue about ways to prevent these infants from automatically becoming U.S. citizens, the staff at Parkland Memorial Hospital is doing what it always does: delivering babies.
Parkland handled 11,071 births last year to women who could not provide proof of U.S. citizenship - or 74 percent of the total 14,872 births at the hospital. Most of these women are believed to be in the country illegally.
It was the busiest hospital in the state for such births."
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20100808-Parkland-emphasizes-care-over-nationality-9000.ece
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
This says that the Congress can codify what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" actually means. The Amendment Author in his support of Section 1 clearly stated that this Amendment was not intended to give Citizenship to everyone. In fact, U.S. Court Stare Decisis has established an "owe allegiance too" test for bestowing birthright Citizenship. Since Congress has remained silent on how Illegal Immigration fits into the "owe allegiance too" test the assumption has been that the children of Illegal Immigrants are automatically Citizens. But this has no supporting court decision. Plyler v. Doe refers to the ability of Congress to define the correct interpretation. And per the Supreme Court decision in the case Katzenbach v. Morgan: “Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining the need for and nature of legislation to secure Fourteenth Amendment guarantees.” In fact a clarification of what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” could be done quite simply with an Act of Congress. So let's be aware of ALL the facts.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
"Senators David Vitter of Louisiana, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah and Jerry Moran of Kansas say their bill requires the federal government to limit automatic citizenship to children born to at least one parent who is a citizen, legal resident, or member of the military."
http://www.760wjr.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=112&itemid=29653347
Cohens article is a non issue, why? Because he fais to do in depth delegence and honost research before he injects his opinion into the issue as fact. What are the facts? Why not go to the actual congressional debates on the subject as they wrote the 14nth amendment, made their statements clarifying its meaning and the intent of the legislation. If one wonders what the 14nth amendment was and so still is and what and who it covers go here. This is the gongress at the time, the people who wrote it and passed it, they knew what it meant and so will you if you take the time. If you prefer to keep up the spin don't go to the writing and passing of the bill.
Dave Gorak
Executive director
Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration
La Valle, WI
www.midwestcoalitiontoreduceimmigration.org
SPLC
Intelligence Project has determined to be organizations, meaning that they target individual immigrants rather than immigration policies. The groups are listed with their locations when known; locations of groups that are statewide units with no known headquarters are designated by state name alone. Groups that are also listed by the Intelligence Project as hate groups are designated by an asterisk (*).
WISCONSIN (3)
Federal Immigration Reform and Enforcement (FIRE) Coalition
Southeast Wisconsin
MCDC of Wisconsin
Oconto Falls
(Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration)
La Valle
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/spring/the-year-in-nativism/nativist-extremists
While this is true, his parents were legally in the country and not here illegally, The Supreme Court has never ruled on children of illegal immigrants. Personally I would rather see the 14th amendment changed to where at least 1 parent must be a US citizen before the child is a citizen.
"Besides, most immigrants come to the United States to escape poverty and find jobs." I wonder where the tens of millions of Americans can go to find jobs.
And yoyrs are???