Talk:United States v. Wong Kim Ark/Archives/2011

Chinese custom of reckoning newborns as "one year old"?
I've read and/or been told, in the past, that the traditional Chinese custom is to say that a newborn baby is "one year old" — effectively making the Chinese reckoning of a person's age one year more than what we would say in the west. I mentioned this, in passing, while discussing the conflicting info re: Wong Kim Ark's birthdate and age. Can anyone come up with a citation to a source for this Chinese custom? Or is it just an urban myth? Richwales 08:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I added a link to the article on East Asian age reckoning. Thanks to Kusunose for pointing out this article after I asked in Reference_desk/Humanities.  Richwales 14:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not an urban myth. A child is one year old at birth and becomes one year older at the beginning of every year. Age is still reckoned this way in Korea and used to be so in Japan.Gmalcolms (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem with symbols?
I'm not sure whether its me, but it appears the names (in the foriegn script) of Wong Kim Ark don't fully appear. -- Lord Roem (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue is here --


 * Wong Kim Ark[4] (黃金德; Toisanese: wong11 gim33 'ak3; Cantonese: wong4 gam1 dak1; Mandarin: huáng jīn dé) was born in San Francisco, California, sometime between 1868 and 1873.[5] His father, Wong Si Ping and his mother, Wee Lee[6] were immigrants from Taishan, China and were not United States citizens.

There it appears the symbols/script is not appearing. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You probably don't have support for Chinese text enabled on your computer. See Help:Multilingual support (East Asian) for more info on this.  I've added the standard Contains Chinese text template to the top of the article to alert readers to this issue.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 01:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha, great. So it was me. :-D -- Lord Roem (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't get down on yourself. Think of it as a learning experience.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark's district court case online
I found an online copy of In Re Wong Kim Ark, the federal district court case which first heard (and upheld) Wong Kim Ark's claim to citizenship, here. Unfortunately, I don't believe this is usable as a source because it's a blog post. :-( I'm going to look for the case in a law library, as well as continue to search for a reliable secondary source that mentions the district court ruling.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No need to go to a law library — I found a more acceptable online source with the actual district court judgment here, and I've updated the reference in the article accordingly. I'll still keep on trying to find a reliable secondary source for this and other aspects of the article.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

explanation of the majority decision
Much more should be said about the basis for the majority opinion than is presented here. It was based on a lot more than English common law, including Supreme Court decisions and very telling quotes from the debates on the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment. Right now, a much fuller picture is given of the dissent.Gmalcolms (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Parents' status in lead
This edit replaced the following language in the lead: "a man born around 1871 to Chinese parents who were lawfully residing in the United States" (emphasis added). The new language says: "a man born in the United States to Chinese parents around 1871". The edit summary says: "restoring earlier language describing Wong's birth; in the absence of a consensus of reliable sources that his parents' 'lawfully' residing in the US was an issue, this point should not be unduly emphasized in the lead".

I strongly disagree with this removal and the rationale given. The removed language did not say whether the lawfulness of the parents' residence was or was not an issue in the case. Nor did it say that the year (1871) was an issue, or that the country of origin (China) was an issue. All of these things are worth mentioning briefly in the lead regardless of whether they were issues. Opponents of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens like to deemphasize or omit the parents' lawful status, while proponents like to emphasize it. A neutral article should simply present the notable facts of the case, whether they're issues or not. To do otherwise is a violation of WP:NPOV, in my opinion. Why present the year (1871) and the country of origin (China) but omit a single word in the lead ("lawfully") to describe the parents' status?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, if we do need to expand on the parents' status in the lead, I would propose to use some of the actual language of the syllabus portion of the court majority's opinion: a man born around 1871 to Chinese parents who were "domiciled residents" in the United States.  I still object to using the specific word lawful in the lead precisely because this word is politically charged (in our present-day context) and was not used in the opinion itself to describe the status of Wong's parents.  In my view, the third paragraph of the lead sufficiently addresses the current legal-vs.-illegal question.   Rich wales (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "domicile" would be better than nothing, but why can't we write for a general audience? "Domicile" means legal residence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The thing that is making me uneasy here is that I see the attempt to add "legal" or "lawful" to the existing wording as potentially slanting the article towards the present-day minority interpretation that Wong Kim Ark applies only to legal resident parents and not to illegal alien parents. As best I can tell, this question was not in the minds of the justices when they considered this case and formulated their ruling — and so I don't think the article should take a stand on the question, one way or the other.  The article should obviously say that this issue is controversial today, and we need to present both sides in a balanced and neutral manner, but that's not the same as using these charged words in our description of the holding.  And no, I do not accept the proposition that failing to say "legal" or "lawful" in the first paragraph promotes a pro-illegal-alien POV.   Rich wales (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't object to you being cautious, but I do object to not using a synonym for "domicile" that ordinary readers will be able to understand. Anyway, I've inserted "domicile" for the time being.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK for now. I understand your concern about "domicile" being too esoteric a term for many readers, but as I explained, I'm not comfortable with inserting the issue of "legal" residence (as opposed to other types of residence) into the opening paragraph, unless we can cite reliable sources to the effect that people were thinking about this distinction at the time (something I believe is exceedingly unlikely, given that both Wong's attorneys and the government stipulated to the facts in the case).  I'll say more about this below, in the next talk section, and I'd propose that we consolidate the "legal" vs. "illegal" discussion there.   Rich wales (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems useful to keep the separate headers, so I'd prefer to not consolidate sections, please. The case repeatedly speaks of domiciled residence rather than simply residence, so it's clear the Court was thinking about the legality of the residence.  If a secondary source explicitly saying so would be helpful, then I'd be glad to get.one (or more).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless someone else chimes in about this issue here at the talk page, or edits this part of the article, I am willing to let this matter rest, even though I think it's silly to not use a more understandable synonym. Inserting "domicile" into the lead is an improvement, and (as discussed further in the next section below), the last paragraph of the lead now clarifies the parents' status.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The sweeping language of the lead
This edit inserts some very sweeping language into the lead, and I think it's too sweeping. The edit summary says: "restoring original language in first paragraph; moving 'subject to U.S. law' idea into second paragraph". Nothing in the edit summary or at this talk page suggested that the lead was inaccurate prior to this change. But I think it's inaccurate now, or at least adopts a particular POV that may or may not be accurate per the sources. The lead said the following before this edit (emphasis added):

"Eventually, this issue reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in Wong's favor, deciding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S. subject to U.S. law, and could not be limited in that regard by an act of Congress."

After the edit, the lead says (emphasis added):

"Eventually, this issue reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in Wong's favor, deciding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S. and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress."

Either the qualification "subject to U.S. law" is accurate or it's not. If it's accurate, then to omit it is to skew this Wikipedia article and distort the case, in my opinion. The new version essentially says the case decided that illegal aliens (not to mention diplomats and everyone else) are citizens if born in the U.S., and that's not what the case actually says. Regarding the words "in its effect", those words deny that Congress can change the effect of the Citizenship Clause, for example by modifying its jurisdiction so as to deny immunity for diplomats. Such is not in the cited sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph in the lead discusses the "subject to the jurisdiction" controversy in greater detail, and it says that the court majority decided the phrase referred to being subject to U.S. law. I believe it's superfluous to also say this in the first paragraph.  I do not agree that the new version is slanted toward illegal aliens, since they (unlike diplomats) are subject to U.S. law.  As for "could not be limited in its effect", if you don't like this phrase, perhaps something incorporating a quote from the majority opinion would be better:  and that an act of Congress "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect".   Rich wales (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be correct that illegal immigrants are "subject to U.S. law" but you also may be incorrect. This case did not address that issue, and scholars like Graglia say they're not subject to U.S. law (i.e. not comparable to Wong Kim Ark and instead comparable to foreign invaders who are in violation of US law every moment they're on US soil).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said in the previous section above, I do not believe (and apparently you don't either?) that Wong Kim Ark addressed the question of US-born children of illegal alien parents. Hence, I believe that the discussion of the holding in the case (whether in the lead section or elsewhere in the article) should avoid any suggestion that this distinction played a significant role in the court's decision.  As for whether illegal aliens are comparable to a hostile armed invasion by foreign forces, people certainly have the right to believe this (just as I have the right to believe it's ludicrous not so) — but unless there are reliable sources substantiating the idea that the Supreme Court thought this way in 1898, it doesn't belong in this article except potentially as part of the final section about the present-day controversy.  And as for the suggestion that illegal aliens are not fully subject to US jurisdiction (in the sense of being subject to US law), I'll accept that Graglia et al. really believe this when I hear them say that illegal aliens who commit crimes on US soil should either be deported (like diplomats), or sent to Gitmo or POW camps (like enemy combatants), rather than going to prison just like other common criminals.   Rich wales (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You first said that including "subject to U.S law" in the first paragraph would be superfluous, but now you're suggesting that inserting this would incorrectly indicate that this distinction played a significant role in the court's decision. So, I'm a bit confused by your changing stance.  What I know for sure is this: the sentence in the lead is extremely misleading as it stands now.  That sentence says the Court held that "essentially everyone" born on US soil is a citizen by birth, and readers will obviously infer that "essentially everyone" includes illegal immigrants.  By inserting the words "subject to U.S. law" we would simply be including a caveat that's already elsewhere in this article, and a caveat that's accurate. Even if you personally believe that illegal immigrants are currently subject to US law, I'm not suggesting that the lead say otherwise; perhaps one day Congress will decide to deport all illegal immigrant criminals, which is why we should not wrongly say in our lead that children of illegal immigrants (who obviously are among "essentially everyone") acquire citizenship by birth.
 * Incidentally, regarding your personal disagreement with Graglia, I suspect that the Citizenship Clause refers to jurisdiction of the federal government rather than jurisdiction of the individual states; there's no apparent contradiction between not being subject to federal law and being subject to state law. (In any event, I don't see why you make a constitutional distinction between an army of invaders that enters the US firing guns, versus the same exact people who instead enter the US by stealth.)
 * I've tried to compromise with you regarding The Exchange and also regarding "domicile". I hope we can find some resolution regarding "subject to U.S. law" as well.  The simplest resolution would be to just insert those words.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think (or, at least, hope) that you and I may be closer here than we think. For starters, I'd like to suggest that we could remove the phrase "encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S. and" from the first paragraph — making the last sentence read: Eventually, this issue reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in Wong's favor, deciding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution could not be impaired in its effect by an act of Congress.  I believe the current second paragraph of the lead is OK as it stands.

As for the third paragraph, I believe I understand your concern that we need to avoid implying that Wong Kim Ark definitely guarantees birthright citizenship to US-born children of illegal aliens. At the same time, I hope you understand my concern that we also need to avoid implying that Wong Kim Ark definitely applies only to children of legal residents. While I am unwilling to have our principal discussion of the holding in this case make an issue of the legal/illegal distinction beyond whatever is attributed to the court's majority in the available reliable sources, I am at the same time willing to see the openness of the issue pointed out in the lead (and also in the subsection near the end of the article, entitled "Relation of the case to birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants"). How about replacing the second sentence in the last paragraph of the lead (the sentence beginning with "Since the 1990s") with something like the following? Since Wong's parents were legal residents of the United States at the time of his birth, however, some legal scholars have argued in recent years that the Wong Kim Ark precedent does not apply when alien parents are in the country illegally, and that U.S.–born children of illegal immigrants do not have a constitutional entitlement to automatic citizenship at birth.  Rich wales (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've implemented your suggestions in the lead, except that I removed the word "however"; I think this word is on a list somewhere of words to avoid at Wikipedia, but in any event I don't think the recent arguments that Wong is inapplicable to illegals contradict the idea that lower courts have accepted Wong as dogma. Thanks for listening and trying to address my concerns.  I've got lots to do right now, but hopefully will be able to take a fresh look at the article soon.  It's probably wise to take a break, anyway.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I made some small changes just now to the "Relation of the case to birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants" subsection, incorporating some of the new concepts we just added to the lead.  While I was at it, I also redid your footnote cite to The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon to use the ussc template, for uniformity with other footnotes in the article.  Please remember, BTW, that there was quite a bit of talk about formatting of court cases in footnotes when this article had its recent (unsuccessful) Featured Article candidacy; I had originally tried to use the cite court template, but there were problems with the way cites were being formatted by cite court, and attempts to fix the bugs in that template ran aground.   Rich wales (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed two instances of "Because Wong's parents were residing legally in the United States at the time of his birth" per WP:YESPOV. The term residing legally in 1898 does not align with its usage today and in this case it is being used improperly. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to this change. I can imagine that some other people might object, but I don't.  —  Rich wales (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up a few more items. Birthright citizenship has been the law of the land since the 14th was passed (at least). Some others can bring sources :) —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments while getting to FA
With the article working towards FA I thought I'd make suggestions here and allow the primary editors to make any changes. So...
 * In section (2) Opinion of the Court:
 * I'd like to see the use of "majority" or "minority" as a qualifier of "opinion" removed. There is only one opinion of the Court and it defines the law. Dissenting opinions carry no legal weight (although they are sometimes picked up in future cases).
 * For example...
 * "The majority opinion was written by Justice Horace Gray, who was joined by..."
 * ...becomes something like...
 * "The opinion of the Court was written by Justice Horace Gray and was joined by..."


 * In section (3.1) Criticisms of Wong Kim Ark and birthright citizenship:
 * The fourth paragraph, starting with "Some legal scholars have argued in recent..." seems to be giving undue weight to the opinions of some scholars that are very much in the minority (they might have some political support but they have no little or no other scholarly support). I think the paragraph could be cut or severely reduced.

Regardless, I'm behind the FA nomination. If I can help, please ask. I'm always up for tedious technical work: citations, locating sources, etc. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've changed "majority opinion" to "opinion of the Court", and changed "dissenting opinion" to "dissent" (see [ here]). I understand your point — though I believe the expressions "majority opinion", "minority opinion", and "dissenting opinion" are widespread in popular discussion and are simply not going to go away, even if (as you point out) they are technically incorrect.


 * I'm less sure what to do regarding the paragraph you mentioned under the "criticisms" section. Although I personally believe (as I get the impression you do too) that these criticisms have little merit, they are not so totally crazy as to fall into a "fringe" category, and I think in all fairness that they do need to be acknowledged.  These criticisms may also help provide context for the subsequent material about contemporary efforts to overrule Wong Kim Ark — efforts which, if viewed only through the lens of early reactions as described in the first two paragraphs, would seem to be motivated by nothing more than raw bigotry.  The paragraph in question currently takes less than 8% of the total text of the article, so I don't really think the existing level of coverage is undue.  And I'm quite sure that if we were to remove or severely trim this paragraph, it would ignite a firestorm of edit-warring (which, regardless of the merits, would surely sink the article's FAC).


 * Please also consider commenting on the FAC page, since I understand this is where discussion on the merits of the article as a potential Featured Article should be focussed. Thanks again for your thoughts.  —  Rich wales (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)