United States v. Wong Kim Ark (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "United States v. Wong Kim Ark" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
1st place
1st place
696th place
428th place
70th place
63rd place
3rd place
3rd place
92nd place
72nd place
low place
low place
34th place
27th place
2nd place
2nd place
26th place
20th place
703rd place
501st place
446th place
308th place
2,755th place
1,753rd place
2,758th place
1,739th place
low place
low place
27th place
51st place
low place
low place
109th place
87th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
2,268th place
1,400th place
198th place
154th place
low place
low place
1,553rd place
1,008th place
3,779th place
3,928th place
low place
7,846th place
3,730th place
2,177th place
8,910th place
5,502nd place
1,478th place
868th place
2,852nd place
1,508th place
11th place
8th place
7,993rd place
6,741st place
low place
low place
low place
low place
1,400th place
777th place
4,919th place
2,808th place
low place
low place
599th place
369th place
166th place
121st place
702nd place
520th place
2,186th place
1,287th place
low place
6,986th place
1,648th place
1,137th place
730th place
468th place
1,998th place
1,116th place
152nd place
120th place
5,482nd place
3,140th place
137th place
101st place
752nd place
484th place

aclu.org

acslaw.org

  • Wydra, Elizabeth (2009). "Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional Guarantee" (PDF). American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. p. 6. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 30, 2013. Retrieved January 6, 2012. For example, Senator Cowan expressed concern that the proposal would expand the number [sic] Chinese in California and Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania by granting birthright citizenship to their children, even (as he put it) the children of those who owe no allegiance to the United States and routinely commit 'trespass' within the United States. Supporters of Howard's proposal did not respond by taking issue with Cowan's understanding, but instead by agreeing with it and defending it as a matter of sound policy.

americanheritage.com

archives.gov

archives.gov

  • Order of the District Court of the United States, Northern District of California, "In the Matter of Wong Kim Ark", January 3, 1896, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved July 17, 2011.

arcweb.archives.gov

books.google.com

cdlib.org

content.cdlib.org

chron.com

  • "'Border Baby' boom strains S. Texas". Houston Chronicle. September 24, 2006. Retrieved July 17, 2011. Immigration-control advocates regard the U.S.-born infants as 'anchor babies' because they give their undocumented parents and relatives a way to petition for citizenship.

congress.gov

doi.org

findacase.com

nv.findacase.com

  • Regan v. King, 134 F.2d 413 Archived March 16, 2021, at the Wayback Machine (9th Cir. 1943). "On the authority of the fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, making all persons born in the United States citizens thereof, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, ... and a long line of decisions, including the recent decision in Perkins, Secretary of Labor et al. v. Elg, ... the judgment of dismissal, 49 F.Supp. 222, is Affirmed."

findlaw.com

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com

fjc.gov

fordham.edu

ir.lawnet.fordham.edu

foxnews.com

govinfo.gov

huffingtonpost.com

jacl.org

jstor.org

justia.com

supreme.justia.com

  • Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).
  • Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884); Bethany R. Berger, Birthright Citizenship on Trial: Elk v. Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Cardozo Law Review (forthcoming 2016)
  • Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873).
  • The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 (1812).
  • The question of whether the Constitution could override a treaty remained unresolved until a 1957 Supreme Court case, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).
  • See, e.g., Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1971). "The [Wong Kim Ark] Court concluded that 'naturalization by descent' was not a common law concept, but was dependent, instead, upon statutory enactment."
  • See, e.g., Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129, 138 (1958). "Nishikawa was born in this country while subject to its jurisdiction; therefore, American citizenship is his constitutional birthright. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark.... What the Constitution has conferred, neither the Congress, nor the Executive, nor the Judiciary, nor all three in concert, may strip away."
  • Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920). "It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of [his alleged parents], he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark...."
  • Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 660 (1927). "United States v. Wong Kim Ark ... establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli...."
  • Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82, 85 (1934). "A person of the Japanese race is a citizen of the United States if he was born within the United States. United States v. Wong Kim Ark...."
  • Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U.S. 25, 34 (1903). "United States v. Wong Kim Ark ... said: 'The term "citizen", as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law...."
  • Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65, 69 (1904). "In United States v. Wong Kim Ark ...: 'In this as in other respects, [a constitutional provision] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution....'"
  • Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 159 n.10 (1963). "[The Citizenship Clause] is to be interpreted in light of preexisting common law principles governing citizenship. United States v. Wong Kim Ark...."
  • Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982). "Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark ... detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term 'jurisdiction' was used. He further noted that it was 'impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ... as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" ... or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."' ... As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."
  • Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

latinamericanstudies.org

leagle.com

  • Regan v. King, 49 F. Supp. 222 (N.D.Cal. 1942). "It is unnecessary to discuss the arguments of counsel. In my opinion the law is settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court just alluded to, and the action will be dismissed, with costs to the defendant."

loc.gov

memory.loc.gov

  • Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 597 (February 2, 1866). "Congress has no power to make a citizen.... [only] to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."
  • Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2890 (May 30, 1866).
  • Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 3149 (June 13, 1866).
  • Proclamation by William H. Seward, Secretary of State, July 28, 1868.

thomas.loc.gov

loc.gov

  • "Law Library of Congress: Fourteenth Amendment and Citizenship". Library of Congress. Retrieved January 2, 2012. However, because there were concerns that the Civil Rights Act might be subsequently repealed or limited the Congress took steps to include similar language when it considered the draft of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • "Law Library of Congress: Fourteenth Amendment and Citizenship". Library of Congress. Retrieved January 2, 2012. The debate in the Senate was conducted in a somewhat acrimonious fashion and focused in part on the difference between the language in the definition of citizenship in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the proposed amendment. Specific discussion reviewed the need to address the problem created by the Dred Scott decision, but also the possibility that the language of the Howard amendment would apply in a broader fashion to almost all children born in the United States. The specific meaning of the language of the clause was not immediately obvious.

rs6.loc.gov

  • An Act to establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization. Archived February 23, 2021, at the Wayback Machine 1st Cong., Sess. II, Chap. 3; 1 Stat. 103. March 26, 1790. "Be it enacted ... That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof.... And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...."

miamiherald.com

milestonedocuments.com

nbcnews.com

npr.org

ourdocuments.gov

pbs.org

racism.org

reason.com

  • Volokh, Eugene (October 30, 2018). "Jim Ho on the Fourteenth Amendment and Children of Illegal (and Legal) Aliens". Reason. Retrieved August 22, 2020. Now I personally think that categorical birthright citizenship is a bad idea.... This having been said, the Constitution seems pretty clear to me, even if I disagree with the rule it sets forth.... People who commit a crime, including the crime of illegal entry, don't somehow elude the jurisdiction of the U.S. as a result. Likewise, the children of people who commit this crime are subject to our jurisdiction as well.

resource.org

bulk.resource.org

richmond.edu

lawreview.richmond.edu

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

sfchronicle.com

sfgate.com

sfweekly.com

  • Davis, Lisa (November 4, 1998). "The Progeny of Citizen Wong". SF Weekly. Archived from the original on May 21, 2013. Retrieved July 17, 2011. Wong Kim Ark spent most of his life as a cook in various Chinatown restaurants. In 1894, Wong visited his family in China.

slu.edu

ssrn.com

uakron.edu

ideaexchange.uakron.edu

uchastings.edu

uchastings.edu

libraryweb.uchastings.edu

  • "In re Look Tin Sing (Ruling)" (PDF). libraryweb.uchastings.edu. Federal Reporter 21 F. 905, Circuit Court, D. California, September 29, 1884. Retrieved February 21, 2019.

ucr.edu

cdnc.ucr.edu

unh.edu

upenn.edu

law.upenn.edu

usdoj.gov

  • Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General (December 13, 1995). "Legislation denying citizenship at birth to certain children born in the United States". Memoranda and Opinions. Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice. Archived from the original on July 25, 2009. Retrieved January 2, 2012. A bill that would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to certain classes of alien parents is unconstitutional on its face. A constitutional amendment to restrict birthright citizenship, although not technically unlawful, would flatly contradict the Nation's constitutional history and constitutional traditions.

uwb.edu

library.uwb.edu

washingtonpost.com

  • Barbash, Fred (October 30, 2018). "Birthright citizenship: A Trump-inspired history lesson on the 14th Amendment". The Washington Post.
  • "Donald Trump meet Wong Kim Ark, the Chinese American Cook who is the father of 'birthright citizenship'". Washington Post. August 31, 2015.

web.archive.org

wikisource.org

en.wikisource.org

yalelawjournal.org