‘Birthright Citizenship Is the Story of San Francisco’: Advocates Celebrate Ruling

“It’s nice not to be mad. It is nice to be happy,” Norman Wong said. “I don’t consider it a personal victory. I consider it a victory for America.”

The ruling in Trump v. Barbara preserved a constitutional right that has stood for more than a century: that nearly anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen. For Norman Wong and other immigrants-rights advocates, and local officials who helped challenge Trump’s order, the decision was a vindication and a warning. While they hailed the ruling as an affirmation of the 14th Amendment, some noted that the ideological divide on the court and a broad wave of restrictive immigration rulings signaled the fight was far from over.

The landmark legal victory traces back to 1898, when Wong, a cook born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was detained on a steamship when he tried to return from visiting China. Wong sued the U.S. government and his case went all the way to the Supreme Court — which affirmed that the Constitution recognized Wong as a citizen.

Norman Wong grew up knowing none of this family history. His father rarely spoke of the past, and Norman Wong only learned of his connection to the landmark case in his 50s.

“When I grew up, even when I was five years old, I knew I was American,” he said. He compared the executive order to suddenly relitigating whether women can vote.

“It was settled law for over a hundred years.”

The case was the central authority cited by the justices in issuing their opinions, though each used it differently, according to SCOTUSblog.

Chief Justice John Roberts referenced Wong Kim Ark 16 times, and Justice Clarence Thomas, in his more than 27,000-word dissent, referenced it a remarkable 49 times, both arguing that the case supported their opinions. As a citizen, Norman Wong said standing up for the right was his responsibility.

“Birthright citizenship for the few, when the few are actually being targeted, that means everybody’s right is being jeopardized. So we need to stand for everyone, because ultimately that’s our own rights too that are at risk.”

San Francisco was the first city in the country to sue over Trump’s order, filing within 24 hours of his second inauguration, according to City Attorney David Chiu — a birthright citizen and the first Asian American to lead the office.

“I know my place in this country is possible because of the 14th Amendment and the courage of Wong Kim Ark 128 years ago, and immigrants like my parents,” said Chiu, whose parents immigrated from Taiwan in the 1960s. The story of birthright citizenship, he said, “is the story of San Francisco.”

Winnie Kao, senior counsel at the Asian Law Caucus and part of the legal team for the plaintiffs, said the executive order “felt very personal.” Wong Kim Ark “was born just blocks from our Chinatown office.”

She noted that the Wong Kim Ark ruling came during a period of extreme hostility toward Chinese immigrants. Wong’s victory came at the height of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the 1882 law restricting Chinese immigration.

The 14th Amendment, initially introduced in response to laws restricting the freedoms of Black Americans after slavery, was meant to guarantee “a broader principle that applied to others,” as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said in her concurrence.

Had the court ruled the other way, Chiu said the decision would have created “a permanent multi-generational underclass” of stateless children, who would be unable to naturalize here or obtain citizenship elsewhere, living “under constant threat of deportation.”

Kao said the consequences would have rippled far beyond immigrant families, forcing a re-examination of “vast swaths of U.S. law” premised on birthright citizenship — and creating “a total administrative and bureaucratic nightmare for everyone, even for parents who are U.S. citizens,” if the government had to verify a newborn’s citizenship by checking a parent’s status rather than a birth certificate.

“Every child born in the United States is a U.S. citizen,” UC Davis law professor Gabriel “Jack” Chin said, with narrow exceptions for children of diplomats or occupying forces. His advice, given heightened immigration enforcement “that often is based on race”: get a birth certificate and hold onto it. “Every individual has to be prepared — particularly non-white individuals — to prove that they are U.S. citizens.”

Though legal scholars described the decision as decisive on the law, questions were left open about whether birthright citizenship could ever not be constitutionally guaranteed. Huy Tran, executive director of the San José immigrant rights group SIREN, noted that in Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion, he concluded that Congress could amend laws to create exceptions to birthright citizenship.

“This is one of those cases that should have been a slam dunk,” Tran said. “Instead, what we have now is that Justice Kavanaugh has basically rolled out a blueprint for how birthright citizenship can be challenged again in the future.”

But for now, the ruling continues to cover almost anyone born in the territory of the U.S.

“This is basically Wong Kim Ark II,” Chin said. “It comes out the same way, and it will put the issue to rest as a legal matter for a couple of generations.”

Chiu acknowledged the victory but reminded that “this past week the same Supreme Court told asylum seekers that they could be turned away, told millions of immigrants with temporary protected status … that they might have to go back to violent, unstable countries. We cannot normalize these attacks on immigrant communities.”

For Norman Wong, the ruling, days before the Fourth of July, will give the holiday a new meaning. He said he planned to celebrate “what it stands for,” not “the pomp and ceremony.”

“It’s about taking real pride in our country,” he said. “Not the flag — our country.”

KQED’s Tyche Hendricks, Carlos Cabrera-Lomelí and Keith Mizuguchi contributed to this reporting.