Search Results
8/3/2025, 10:52:45 PM
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Case tl;dr - Wong was born in the U.S. to legal resident Chinese parents. They went back home to China and brought him with them. He reimmigrates to U.S. and gets blocked. Supreme Court ruled that due to ENGLISH COMMON LAW, because anyone born in ENGLAND is an English citizen, then therefore anyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen, regardless of Constitution and regardless of the Framers' intent.
How can I be certain?
From the Floor Debates of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
Sen. Cowan asks:
> “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant (Wong Kim Ark) in California a citizen?”
Sen. Howard replies:
> “If they are foreigners and aliens... they are not subject to the jurisdiction.”
Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2890 (1866)
Meaning that the children of foreigners who owe allegiance to a foreign sovereign are not U.S. citizens.
You lost a country because of this.
Case tl;dr - Wong was born in the U.S. to legal resident Chinese parents. They went back home to China and brought him with them. He reimmigrates to U.S. and gets blocked. Supreme Court ruled that due to ENGLISH COMMON LAW, because anyone born in ENGLAND is an English citizen, then therefore anyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen, regardless of Constitution and regardless of the Framers' intent.
How can I be certain?
From the Floor Debates of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
Sen. Cowan asks:
> “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant (Wong Kim Ark) in California a citizen?”
Sen. Howard replies:
> “If they are foreigners and aliens... they are not subject to the jurisdiction.”
Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2890 (1866)
Meaning that the children of foreigners who owe allegiance to a foreign sovereign are not U.S. citizens.
You lost a country because of this.
Page 1