Wong is a long and complicated case found in favor of Wong.
The quote that the poster listed was from a pamphlet printed in Philadelphia page 22 note. The Justice then writes that it was published without the Author’s name, and WITHOUT THAT QUOTE - in the American Law Register.
He then immediately discusses what counsel for the US claims which was this
“It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.
But at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States in 1789......”
Etc.
He is quoting a PAMPHLET in the overall discussion of the case - one that was probably brought up the the Government. It is an overall discussion..and a belief, IN MY OPINION..he did not follow.
Case found in favor of Wong.
ping
The case was not defining Wong as a natural born citizen, it was decided in his favor that he was a citizen, not naturalized citizen. Is that correct?
There is a misconception floating around that suggests the ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is the definite guiding rule of interpretation over the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause. Worst, some even go as far to suggest Wong Kim Ark is settled law. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Reading the majorities opinion in Kim Ark, one can’t help but wonder why so much emphasis is being placed on such obscure and irrelevant historical overviews as colonial and foreign law. With two previous established court decisions that substantially covered the same ground regarding the meaning and application of the words found under the fourteenth amendments citizenship clause, leaves one to wonder what is going on here? [The Elg case is one, offered thoughts on that one below]
Deeper into the decision, justice Horace Gray (writing for the majority) reveals exactly what the majority is up to: They are attempting to avoid discussion over the construction of the clause by the two Senators whom are most responsible for its language found in the Constitution, Jacob M. Howard and Lyman Trumbull.
It is clear the Wong Kim Ark majority recognized the only viable approach to the conclusion they sought was to somehow distant themselves from the recorded history left behind by the citizenship clause framers. Justice Gray [ Gray was appointed by Arthur to perhaps establish a sort of credibility for Arthur's ineligibility when he ascended the office of President. Some see an inveigling of the 14th amendment and 1795 Naturalization Act in the wording.] made no attempt to hide this fact when he wrote: “Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”
Whatever credibility the court may had at the beginning was soon lost when Gray wrote:
The words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment … as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States…” Here the court is presuming what Congress may have intended while at the same time arguing the written debates that could easily disclose this intent is inadmissible as evidence. This has to be one of the most incompetent and feeble rulings ever handed down by the Supreme Court. [And the reason Wong Kim Ark is not settled law.]
Justice John Paul Stevens would take issue with this inept attempt by the majority to rewrite the Constitution: “A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”
Moreover, if Justice Gray was really being honest with his assertion that the “intention” of Congress lies in the amendments words alone; why then did the court fail to observe that persons naturalized were also required to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? Gray writing for the majority in Elk v. Wilkins observed these “words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other.”
Therefore, any court would have been forced to conclude by words alone that the clause requires not only not owing allegiance to another nation but also in return owing allegiance to this nation in advance - just as required to become a naturalized citizen. In other words, the condition of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States equally applies to all persons whether born or naturalized and this jurisdiction includes political attachment (Elk v. Wilkins) and not simply geographical location.
. . .
Lyman Trumbull presents an insurmountable barrier of his own by declaring: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Sen. Howard follows up by stating that: “the word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
. . .
When all was said and done, the majority in Wong Kim Ark reveals their true nonsensical position: “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”
Well now, the issue was not citizenship being withheld on account of the 14th Amendment to American citizens, and had the court bothered to consider the history of the amendment, they would have easily discovered it was all about granting citizenship as established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child. The idea of withholding citizenship upon birth to subjects of other countries who owed this country no direct allegiance was, well, the desired result of declaring who is, and who isn’t, a citizen of the United States.
. . .
NOTE: The Wong Kim Ark ruling left undisturbed the uniform judicial doctrine since 1885 that said when residence is permanent the child born here of permanent residents should be considered a citizen of the United States. Although not a constitutional controversy under the words or interpretation the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment provided, current federal judicial understanding could be said unsettled under Wong Kim Ark in terms of temporary or illegal residents.