Descendant of Historic Citizenship Case Watches Supreme Court Battle Over Birthright

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on President Trump's executive order ending automatic citizenship for babies born to non-citizen parents. A San Francisco man whose great-grandfather won a landmark 1898 citizenship case says the current fight echoes the same anti-immigrant sentiment from over a century ago.

A legal battle over who deserves American citizenship is heading back to the Supreme Court, and for one California man, the fight feels like history repeating itself.

President Trump’s executive order targeting birthright citizenship mirrors a controversy that unfolded in San Francisco more than 125 years ago, when the federal government tried to block a young Chinese-American man from returning home after visiting China.

In that 1898 case, Wong Kim Ark had been born in San Francisco’s Chinatown but faced deportation because officials claimed his Chinese parents made him ineligible for citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled against the government on March 28, 1898, affirming that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ nationality.

Today, Wong’s great-grandson Norman Wong, 76, watches nervously as the high court prepares to consider Trump’s January executive order, which would strip automatic citizenship from babies whose parents are not citizens or permanent residents.

“Wong Kim Ark knew he was an American. And he demanded that his citizenship be recognized. He was willing to stand up,” Norman Wong said during an interview. “Wong Kim Ark didn’t make the rule. He affirmed the rule.”

The retired carpenter from the San Francisco area believes the Trump administration is using “fake arguments and fake reasons” to undermine a fundamental American principle.

Trump’s directive represents part of his broader immigration crackdown and fulfills campaign promises to restrict birthright citizenship. Administration officials argue that automatic citizenship encourages illegal immigration and “birth tourism,” where foreigners come to America specifically to give birth and secure citizenship for their children.

The policy would affect children born to parents in the country illegally or temporarily, including international students and workers on temporary visas.

Legal scholars say the administration faces significant challenges in overturning more than a century of established law. The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause declares: “All persons 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.”

This amendment, ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, was designed to overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision that denied citizenship to people of African descent.

“Every single method and source of constitutional interpretation confirms that it applies to everyone born in the United States with extremely narrow common law exceptions,” explained University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost.

The main exception involves children of foreign diplomats, who do not receive birthright citizenship.

Trump’s Justice Department maintains that the government has incorrectly granted citizenship for generations to people who shouldn’t qualify – specifically those present illegally or temporarily in the country.

If the Supreme Court supports this interpretation, the consequences could be massive. Estimates suggest up to 250,000 babies born annually in the United States could lose automatic citizenship, and millions of families might need to prove their newborns’ citizenship status.

While Trump’s order officially applies only to future births, critics worry it could eventually be used retroactively.

“While the order is formally prospective … the arguments the government is making about what it claims the Constitution means cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions of other people who have lived their entire lives as American citizens, potentially going back generations,” said Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer challenging the directive.

The original Wong Kim Ark case began when he returned from China in 1895. Despite being born in San Francisco, customs officials declared him a non-citizen because his parents were Chinese nationals, making him subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

The Supreme Court rejected the government’s attempt to limit citizenship based on the 14th Amendment’s phrase about being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” In a 6-2 decision, justices ruled this language was meant only to exclude children of foreign diplomats and occupying enemies, “not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.”

The court noted that accepting the government’s argument “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.”

Trump’s team argues their order complies with both the 14th Amendment and the 1898 ruling because it still allows citizenship for some immigrants with lawful “domicile” in America, including permanent residents.

The administration points out that Wong Kim Ark’s parents had permanent residence in the United States, unlike temporary visitors or those here illegally.

Some legal experts see room for interpretation. University of Minnesota law professor Ilan Wurman noted that the Wong Kim Ark precedent “strictly speaking, focused on law domiciled parents” and contains “good language supporting either side of this case.”

Norman Wong, who learned about his family’s legal legacy later in life and recently visited his ancestral village in China, sees the current battle as more than a legal dispute.

“I didn’t see the executive order … as an end. I saw that as a beginning, that they would chip away at citizenship until they can do away with the people that they don’t want. And they’ll always have a reason, you know?” Wong said. “We’re talking about the soul of America, who we are as a people.”

The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has previously allowed Trump to implement various immigration measures while legal challenges proceed. The justices will hear arguments Wednesday in a case brought by the ACLU on behalf of families whose citizenship would be threatened by the executive order.