Wong Kim Ark was a civil rights hero; he made all who are born here American citizens.
On the eve of the 124th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), San Francisco Chronicle editorial writer Harry Mok wrote about the continued significance of the decision. He heralds the current era of young Chinese Americans defining what it means to be American in the 21st century. Wong Kim Ark’s true legacy is enjoyed not just by these young people but by the millions of individuals of all backgrounds who have gained the permanency of citizenship because of his courage and persistence.
Mok’s column stands in direct contrast to the editorial stance taken by his historical predecessors at the S.F. Chronicle throughout the late 1800s as some of the leading voices against Chinese American immigration and fair treatment. At the time, San Francisco was the largest city in the state and California was a swing state in national elections. Amidst its local ordinances against Chinese shop owners, legalized school and housing segregation, and even prohibitions against the wearing of queue pony-tailed hair, San Francisco was the epicenter of anti-Chinese sentiment. Throughout the West Coast, from Wyoming to Los Angeles, Chinese Americans suffered some of the largest mass lynchings in American history. Anti-Chinese legislation by our Board of Supervisors led to state legislation and ultimately the federal Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The Act was extended into the 20th century by San Francisco Congressman Julius Kahn (himself an immigrant) and enforced until it was repealed by Congress in 1943 as a gesture of solidarity toward our World War II ally China.
It was in this social and political atmosphere that Wong Kim Ark fought back against the federal government barring him from returning to San Francisco from an early 1890s trip to China. Wong Kim Ark had been born on Sacramento Street in 1873 on the second floor above his father’s shop, five years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment that promised U.S. citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . .” In 1895, after Wong Kim Ark took a trip to China, the United States government barred his re-entry to San Francisco, his hometown, because he was not a citizen, had not naturalized and was a laborer forbidden by the Exclusion Act.
It was clear Wong Kim Ark had been born here but was he subject to the jurisdiction of our laws? Birthright citizenship opponents contended (and still contend) that his allegiance was to China, the country of his parents’ birth. This would have been a no-win quandry for natives like Wong Kim Ark — his parents were barred from becoming U.S. citizens and it is difficult for any infant to demonstrate any kind of political allegiance. Children born to immigrants, under this argument, would be stateless or deemed citizens of a country to which they had no connection.
The U.S. Supreme Court answered the question clearly 124 years ago today. The terms of the 14th Amendment had meaning. The Court analyzed the laws and practices granting citizenship prior to the 14th Amendment, prior to the formation of the colonies and adoption of the Constitution, all the way back to a 1608 English decision in Calvin’s Case that established that citizenship would be based upon where an individual was born. The 14th Amendment extended that principle to “all persons” irrespective of color except for children born in the U.S. whose parents were foreign diplomats or occupying soldiers.
The beneficiaries of Wong Kim Ark, the man and the decision, go far beyond those of Chinese descent born here during the exclusion period. Birthright citizenship protects children born here whose parents are international students, H-1B high tech and other temporary workers, and those whose parents lack immigration authorization or who have legal status but for any number of reasons have not applied for or been granted naturalization. The Wong Kim Ark decision also removes the uncertainty of having to wait until a mature age for an individual to make some showing of political allegiance. And, of course, all persons who are here are “subject to” our laws — they must follow all local, state or federal laws and have no exemption card because they are not yet citizens.
While the Wong Kim Ark decision was a defeat for the San Francisco Chronicle and anti-Chinese voices in turn-of-the-century California, the Chronicle took the defeat philosophically and observed that, “So long as the state can protect the ballot box, it is safe from the more unpleasant features of Chinese and Indian citizenship.” Chinese American political empowerment would take decades. The Chinese American Democratic Club was formed in 1958 and the first public officials followed onto the Board of Supervisors and Board of Education appointed by Mayors Alioto and Moscone and subsequently elected in the 1970s.
In 1998, upon the centennial of the Wong Kim Ark decision, the local Asian American Bar Association and I, representing the U.S. Department of Justice, held a celebration at the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association headquarters in Chinatown. The CCBA had recruited and paid for Wong Kim Ark’s attorney in the original case. At that event, Mayor Willie Brown observed that the local, state and federal governmental institutions that had lined up against Chinese American inclusion were now celebrating his victory. Wong Kim Ark’s victory is a victory for all. For the power of the rule of law to shape societal thinking, to reduce barriers and to promote equal treatment.
Wong Kim Ark’s victory is a reminder that Chinese Americans have long ago paid an exorbitantly high price of admission to this society and earned constitutional victories that benefit all Americans. Far from the “forever foreign” or “white adjacent” stereotypes, they have fought to extend basic American civil rights principles to all communities. This is another aspect of Wong Kim Ark’s 1898 Supreme Court victory that serves as a lesson to students and communities in the 21st century.
