What’s Wrong With Wong Kim Ark?
... political writers often refer to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark as the ultimate authority on birthright citizenship, natural born citizenship, and the citizenship status of controversial “anchor babies.”...
In 1898, Congress had not formalized permanent residence in the United States. Immigration was loosely controlled...
Similarly, there was no visa system in place in 1898...
Given the timeline of immigration law developments, when Congress debated and ratified the 14th Amendment, particularly its citizenship clause, it did not define what constituted residence in a state or what was meant by the words “under the jurisdiction thereof.” Similarly, the Constitution does not define the terms “citizen,” “persons,” or “natural born citizen.”..
The Court could looked to documents associated with ratifying the 14th Amendment, which would have provided information about Congress’s intentions...
Instead, though, the Court ignored documents spelling out the legislators’ intentions and, instead, referred to English Common Law...
... the words of Sen. Jacob Howard, the primary floor manager and chief spokesperson for the 14th Amendment during the Senate’s debate. He assured his fellow Senators,
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.
When they were in the United States, Wong’s parents were always and only subjects of the Emperor of China. In the parlance of the authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment, Wong’s parents were never solely under the jurisdiction of the United States...
... the Wongs returned to China, never to return to the United States... The court also discounted Wong’s continued Chinese allegiance...
Related
Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment
Misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution