Birthright Citizenship Under Fire

Friends and Family:

Yesterday I listened to most of the US Supreme Court debate regarding ‘Birthright Citizenship” broadcast live on CNN (with commercial interruptions).  One wonders if the various justices huddled on the sidelines as do professional athletes. In order to discuss tactics and hydrate.

Two words were spoken time and again in open debate. “Allegiance and Domicile.”  At the center of the case was an 1898 precedent, “United States vs. Wong Kim Ark.” Facts of the case:

“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 domicil 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, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

All person 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."  (Justia.com)

Mr. Ark was born in California, where his parents did business and had a domicile. But were not US citizens.

Yet this case was central to US Supreme Court debate yesterday regarding the legality of Trumps’ Executive Order to end “Birthright Citizenship.” And breaking all historical precedent Trump attended the oral arguments. No surprise there,

So back to “allegiance and domicile.” I taught several Jehovah Witness students who refused to stand or recite the Pledge of Allegiance or The National Anthem. They were born in the US and lived with their parents in a domicile. They refused for religious reasons, “there is no sovereign but God.”  Actually not a bad argument. Given the actions of diverse governmental systems in the 18^th, 19^th, 20^th and 21^st centuries. Also they choose not to vote, but they do pay their taxes. Does this make them ‘citizens or not?’ Discuss amongst yourselves.

At National History Day one year, the opening ceremony included Marines and a rifle guard with all their skills and showmanship followed by the US National Anthem, (although it is an international event) followed by the US Pledge of Allegiance. 

At least 2000 students, parents and teachers in the University of Maryland basketball stadium. My student did not stand or pledge. I decided to sit next to her so she would not be the only person in the stadium not standing.

One discussion point at the heart of the argument was that ‘birth in the states implies allegiance.’ What would The Weather Underground, or the Chicago Seven make of this assumption? Or Malcom X? Or the Black Panthers?

Chinese Exclusion Act

Yesterday’s Mr. Ark hearing referenced, occurred six years after the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 – banning Chinese immigrants from working in the US for ten years. Signed by President Chester Arthur (no surprise a Republican) inspired by demands of US West Coast xenophobes, afraid of losing jobs to foreign individuals.  Not much different from non-college educated Caucasians of losing work to Hispanics and African Americans these days.

The Tacoma Method (Solution)

Was a mob riot of Tacoma Citizens to expel Chinese people from their homes and the city. All people of Chinese ancestry were told to leave Tacoma immediately. Later the Chinese properties were burned to the ground. The year was 1885. In the day, it was considered by some as a model for how to reduce the number of Chinese locally. 

Is this behavior much different than the actions of ICE under Trump?

BTW I lived in Tacoma for about 40 years.  There is a monument or reconciliation at a waterfront park and local school children participate in a Chinese boat race each spring. Perhaps cultural evolution is possible?

Plessy vs Ferguson and ‘Separate but Equal’

Around the same time a Louisiana ‘Test Case’ was started by Homer Plessy by encouragement of a local committee to challenge the state’s segregation law, stating that anyone with 16^th African blood had to travel in separate cars on trains. (Prelude to Rosa Parks 50 years later.)

Mr. Plessey was one eighth African descent.  He sat in the “White Car” on the train, and had to tell the ticket guy that he was in fact by law, Black.  The ticket guy said, well you belong in the next car.  Plessy refused to move, and was eventually arrested, starting the court challenge desired.

The US Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 on an new legal doctrine, ‘Separate but Equal’ to apply to public schools, public transport, public restaurants, public bathrooms and public water fountains.

So 50+ years of official – legal – segregation and second class citizenship were enforced in the South on African American citizens. Until the civil rights movement gained small victories in the 1930’ through the 1960’s.

One dissenting opinion came from Justice Harmon, who wrote essentially, ‘The Negro has more in common with the White Race than the Chinaman does.’

Dred Scott Decision

Of course this all started with the Dred Scott Decision, generally considered the worst US Supreme Court decision of all time.

Dred Scott was a slave, who accompanied his owner from Southern states into Northern (free states) and into Western Territories.  Then returned to Iowa Territory where his master died.  The inheriting widow encouraged Mr. Scott to sue for his freedom and that of his wife.

“On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney read the majority opinion of the Court, which stated that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. The opinion also stated that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a federal territory. This decision moved the nation a step closer to the Civil War.”  (US National Archives)

Justice Taney was a Maryland Catholic who owned slaves.

‘Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa,’ I hope recited during Last Rites.

Brother James on Good Friday 2026