縱觀美國歷史，雖然直至內戰結束後才有對公民權作出明確定義的法律[7]，但以屬地主義原則判斷公民身份一直是占有主導地位的法律原則，而且此做法已經得到普遍接受[8][9]，故所有在美國領土出生的新生兒都將自動獲得公民權。唯一例外則是在內戰前奴隸遭排除在外，因為他們被認為是奴隸主的財產，因而不能成為美國公民[10][11][12]。1844年紐約州有過一個以屬地主義原則判定公民權的典型案例林奇訴克拉克案（Lynch v. Clarke），案中一對外國夫婦僑居在紐約市時生下了一名女嬰，這個女嬰就由法官根據屬地主義原則判定是一位美國公民[13]。
美國公民權同樣也可以通過血統主義原則獲得，國會曾通過《1790年入籍法（英語：Naturalization Act of 1790）》確認了這一原則，主要是為了讓身在國外美國公民的孩子也可以自動擁有公民權[14]。此外，移民美國的外國人也可以通過歸化程序成為美國公民，這一過程起初只限定對「自由的白人」開放，但之後已經廢除了限制[14]。
由於擔心《1866年民權法案》中保證的公民權遭將來的國會立法廢除[20]，或是被法院判定違憲[21][22]，法案通過後國會馬上就起草了美利堅合眾國憲法第十四條修正案並遞交各州批准（整個過程都在1868年完成）[23]。第十四條修正案中的許多規定確立了對公民身份的憲法保證：「所有在合眾國出生或歸化合眾國並受其管轄的人，都是合眾國的和他們居住州的公民」[24][25][26]。這一公民權條款由來自密歇根州的聯邦參議員雅各布·M·霍華德（英語：Jacob M. Howard）於1866年5月30日提出，是對眾議院聯席決議起草的第十四條修正案初稿的一個補充[27]。參議院對霍華德的提議展開了激烈的辯論，辯論主要集中在其譴辭用句上是否會比《1866年民權法案》產生更廣泛的影響[28]。霍華德表示這一條款「只是簡單地將我看來已經成為法律的內容作一次宣示，那就是根據自然法和國家法律，所有在合眾國出生或歸化合眾國並受其管轄的人，都是合眾國的公民」[27]。他也補充認為公民權的賦予「當然不包括那些外交官或是受聯邦政府認可的他國官員及其家人，但是應該包括所有其他層次的人。」這一補充之後將引發國會是否一開始就打算將他國人士在美國出生的後代認定為美國公民的爭議。來自賓夕法尼亞州的埃德加·科萬（英語：Edgar Cowan）對此表示擔憂，認為放寬公民權標準可能會導致一些州湧入大量不良外來移民[29]；不過來自加利福尼亞州的約翰·康納斯（英語：John Conness）則預料該州的華人總數將保持在一個很低的數字，這很大程度上是由於華人移民幾乎最終總是會返回中國，而這則是因為很少會有中國的女性離開故土來到美國[30]。
在第十四條修正案通過後，黃金德案出現之前，外國人士孩童出生地公民權的問題專指華人和土著印第安人[52][53]。聯邦最高法院曾在1884年的艾爾克訴威爾金斯案（英語：Elk v. Wilkins）中裁決於保留地出生的印第安人不屬於聯邦政府管轄範圍，因此不能夠獲得美國公民身份，亦不可因為之後只是離開保留地並放棄向之前的部落效忠就能成為美國公民[54][55]。
華人移民在美國出生的後代是否適用公民權條款的問題首先是在1884年的「陸天申案」（In re Look Tin Sing）中提出的[56]。陸天申[57]於1870年在加利福尼亞州蒙多西諾（英語：Mendocino, California）出生，1884年他去了一趟中國，但回美國時由於不能提供當時所規定中國移民就有的足夠證明文件，他被禁止入境。這個案件在加利福尼亞州的聯邦巡迴法院（英語：United States Circuit Court）開庭，聯邦最高法院大法官史蒂芬·約翰遜·菲爾德（英語：Stephen Johnson Field）和另外兩位聯邦法官審理[56]。據新罕布什爾大學歷史教授露西·薩爾耶（Lucy Salyer）[58]書中所寫，大法官菲爾德「向該地區所有的律師發出公開邀請，請他們就（這一案件）涉及的憲法問題發表意見」[41]:60。菲爾德關注於公民權條款中「並受其管轄」這一短語的含義，認為陸天申出生時，他的父母雖然是外國人士，但他仍然「受美國管轄」，因此大法官命令美國官員視陸天申為美國公民並允許他入境[59]。陸天申案之後並沒有上訴，並且也從未被最高法院審查。1892年的另一個案件中，加利福尼亞州同一個巡迴區的聯邦上訴法院（即之後的第九巡迴上訴法院）總結認為只要一個華人可以提供足夠的證據證實他是在美國境內出生的，那麼就應視其為美國公民[60]。這一案件同樣沒有上訴到最高法院。
黃金德（Wong Kim Ark[65]）出生於舊金山，各種來源表明他有可能是出生於1873年[66]、1871年[67][68]或1868年[69][70]。他的父親黃四平（Wong Si Ping，音譯）和母親李薇（Wee Lee，音譯）都是來自中國的移民，而二人皆非美國公民[3]:74[50]:51。黃金德在舊金山做廚師[71]。
在中華公所法律代表的幫助下[41]:67，黃金德對拒絕承認他生來就是美國公民的人提出挑戰，並向美國聯邦地區法院發起人身保護令的呈請[74][75]。地區法院法官威廉·W·莫羅（英語：William W. Morrow）聽取了雙方的辯論[50]:52，這場庭辯主要圍繞公民權條款中「並受其管轄」（subject to the jurisdiction thereof'）五字解讀以及外來人士在美國所生孩子是否屬於美國公民的問題展開[76]。黃金德的律師認為其含義是「受到合眾國法律的管轄」，在這樣的理解下，他國公民進入美國後就應遵守其法律。這一解讀也與美國從英國所繼承的普通法思想相符，並且將確保所有在美國出生的人都會根據出生地原則而成為美國公民。聯邦政府則聲稱「並受其管轄」的意思是「從政治上受合眾國的管轄」。這樣的解讀則是來自於國際法，是根據一個孩子的父母來判斷其國籍，即「血統主義」原則。根據這樣的解讀，由於黃金德的父母都不是美國公民，因此他也不是[77][78]。
黃金德的律師援引陸天申案（In re Look Tin Sing，音譯[57]）中地區法院法官的意見，在最高法院沒有指定一個明確方向的情況下，這一案件將對解決所有第九巡迴區與黃金德情況類似人士的公民權問題起到決定性作用[84][85]。法官注意到陸天申案的判決在之後也得到了聯邦上訴法院另一案件的重申，還參考了最高法院在屠宰場案判決中「只要（一個人）在美國出生或是歸化，那麼他就是美國的公民」這一表述[86]。他得出結論認為陸天申案判決是第九巡迴區的一個有效先例。莫羅法官裁定「並受其管轄」意味着受美國法律的管轄。1896年1月3日[87][88]，法官宣布黃金德是一位美國公民，原因為他在美國出生[89][90]。
聯邦政府敗訴後直接向最高法院提出了上訴[91][92]。據薩爾耶的說法，政府官員意識到這一案件的判決「不僅是對華裔，而且對所有在美國出生但父母是別國人士的人皆非常重要」，同時也擔心如果按常規途徑上訴至最高法院，那麼同年11月的1896年美國總統選舉將會對最高法院的判決產生影響。所以為了避免法院基於對政策的擔憂而非根據案件本身來進行審理，政府選擇了越過上訴法院[41]:69。1897年3月5日，雙方在最高法院展開了口頭辯論[93]。代表政府一方的是聯邦訟務次長霍爾姆斯·康拉德（英語：Holmes Conrad）[94]，而代表黃金德出庭的律師則是麥克斯維爾·埃瓦茨（英語：Maxwell Evarts），前助理聯邦司法部長J·哈伯利·阿什頓（J. Hubley Ashton）[95]和托馬斯·D·里爾丹（Thomas D. Riordan）[96]。
判決書中援引1812年帆船交易所訴法登案（英語：The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon）中首席大法官約翰·馬歇爾的意見：「國家對其領土的管轄權必定是專屬且絕對的」[108][109][110]，支持了最初審理此案的地區法院法官有關「屠宰場案」中非公民父母後代公民權的判決並不構成本案具有約束性先例的意見[64]。法院認為黃金德與生俱來的公民權受第十四條修正案保護，《排華法案》中的限制對其不適用[111]。他們認為一項國會的立法不能凌駕於憲法之上，這樣的法律「不能左右（憲法的）含義或是削弱其效果，而必須服從規定並予以解釋及執行」[112][113]。1898年法院的裁決公布後不久，舊金山市檢察官馬歇爾·B·伍德沃斯（Marshall B. Woodworth）[114][115]評價道，對判決「持異議者顯然沒有意識到合眾國作為一個主權實體，有權通過任何其認為適當的公民權法律，國際法中的相關規則並不能將美國公民認定原則限制在其單獨的範圍內」[116]:561。
國會曾在提出第十四條修正案兩個月前通過了《1866年民權法案（英語：Civil Rights Act of 1866）》，其中有「除了未被徵稅的印第安人以外，所有在美國出生且非任何外國勢力的人」都是美國公民的表述。持不同意見的兩位法官據此認為公民權條款中「並受其管轄」應該也是成為美國公民的必要條件[122][123]。在其看來，過度依賴屬地主義原則作為判斷公民身份的決定性因素是站不住腳的，「外國人僅僅是經過我國時所生下的孩子，無論其是否有皇族血統，又無論他們是蒙古、馬來或其他種族都有資格去競選總統，而我們自己公民在海外所生的孩子卻反而沒有」[2]。
美國目前的法律規定，出生時自動獲得公民權的途徑有兩種，一種是屬地主義原則規定的在美國領地出生，另一種則是血統主義原則確立的從父母血緣關係上確立[6]。在黃金德案以前，聯邦最高法院曾在艾爾克訴威爾金斯案中判決出生地原則不足以賦予美洲原住民美國公民權[131]，但是，國會還是通過《1924年印第安人公民法（英語：Indian Citizenship Act of 1924）》將公民權賦予了印第安人[132][133][134]。
1942年的里根訴金案（Regan v. King）對2600名在美國出生日裔人士的公民權提出了挑戰。原告律師稱黃金德案是最高法院所做出過「最具傷害力也是最不幸的判決之一」，並稱希望這個新的案件可以給法院「一個糾正自己的機會」[147]。聯邦地區法院[148][149]和第九巡迴上訴法院[150]都斷然拒絕了這種論調，並援引黃金德案為一個有效的法律先例，最高法院也拒絕了這個案件的調卷令[151]。
1982年，最高法院審理了普萊勒訴杜伊案（英語：Plyler v. Doe）[168]，案件涉及在國外出生的孩子與父母一起非法進入美國後要求公民權的問題。法院認為第十四條修正案的管轄權同樣適用於非法移民及其後代[169][170]。一項德克薩斯州州法曾試圖拒絕非法移民的後代進入公立學校就讀，州政府聲稱「非法進入美國的人即使居留在某州範圍內且服從其法律也不屬該州『管轄範圍』」[146]。最高法院對此以5比4作出的裁決指出，根據黃金德案，第十四條修正案中「並受其管轄」和「管轄範圍內」實質上是同樣的意思；兩種表達都主要是指物理存在而非政治忠誠[104]，因此黃金德案判決同樣令非法移民的後代受益[169]。法院裁決認定，第十四條修正案的管轄權與一個人是否是以合法方式進入美國無關[146][171]。
為了響應公眾打擊非法移民的要求[104]，同時也擔心非法移民的後代成為美國公民後，其相應本沒有資格繼續停留在國內的親屬也全部都成為「連鎖移民」，國會曾數次提出法案試圖挑戰對公民權條款的常規解讀，並尋求辦法積極和明確地拒絕給予外國遊客或非法居留人士在美國所生後代的公民權，但都沒有成功[174]。2009年，來自喬治亞州的聯邦眾議員內森·迪爾在第111屆國會上提出了《2009年出生公民權法》（Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009），這一法案就是旨在排除非法移民在美國所生子女對公民權條款的適用性[175]；2011年1月5日，艾奧瓦州眾議員史蒂夫·金又在第112屆提出了與之類似的《2011年出生公民權法》（Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011）[176]；2011年4月5日，來自路易斯安納州的聯邦參議員大衛·韋特也在參議院提出了類似的法案「S. 723」[177]；不過截止2011年12月，《2011年出生公民權法》還沒有進入眾議院或參議院的議程。
Glen, Patrick J. Wong Kim Ark and Sentencia que Declara Constitucional la Ley General de Migración 285-04 in Comparative Perspective: Constitutional Interpretation, Jus Soli Principles, and Political Morality. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. Fall 2007, 39 (1): 67–109. JSTOR 40176768.
Woodworth, Marshall B. Citizenship of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. American Law Review (St. Louis: Review Pub. Company). 1896, 30: 535–555.
Woodworth (1896), p. 538. "As a matter of fact, there was no definition in the constitution, or in any of the Acts of Congress, as to what constituted citizenship, until the enactment of the Civil Rights Bill in 1866, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868."
Woodworth (1896), p. 538. "So generally accepted and acted upon has been the impression that birth in this country ipso facto confers citizenship, that there are, to-day, thousands of persons born in the United States of foreign parents, who consider themselves, and are recognized, legally, as citizens. Among these are very many voters, whose right to vote, because born here of foreign parents, has never been seriously questioned."
"Authorities", 7 FAM 1119(d). "Until 1866, the citizenship status of persons born in the United States was not defined in the Constitution or in any federal statute. Under the common law rule of jus soli—the law of the soil—persons born in the United States generally acquired U.S. citizenship at birth."
Woodworth (1896), p. 537. "[T]he commonly accepted notion in this country, both prior and subsequent to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment ... has been that birth within the United States, although of alien parents, was sufficient, of itself, to confer the right of citizenship, without any other requisite, such for instance, as the naturalization proceedings which take place with reference to aliens."
Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General. 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. 1995-12-13 [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於2013-12-22）. 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.
Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. at 250. "Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.... I am bound to say that the general understanding ... is that birth in this country does of itself constitute citizenship.... Thus when at an election, the inquiry is made whether a person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country, it is received as conclusive that he is a citizen.... The universality of the public sentiment in this instance ... indicates the strength and depth of the common law principle, and confirms the position that the adoption of the Federal Constitution wrought no change in that principle."
An Act to establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization 1st Cong., Sess. II, Chap. 3; 1 Stat. 103. 1790-3-26. The Library of Congress. [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於2021-02-23）. 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....
Schwarz, Frederic D. The Dred Scott Decision. American Heritage (Rockville, MD: American Heritage Publishing). 2007-02-03, 58 (1) [2012-06-14]. （原始內容存檔於2012-06-14）.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 675. "The same Congress, shortly afterwards, evidently thinking it unwise, and perhaps unsafe, to leave so important a declaration of rights to depend upon an ordinary act of legislation, which might be repealed by any subsequent Congress, framed the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution...."
Epps, Garrett. Democracy Reborn: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Fight for Equal Rights in Post-Civil War America. Holt Paperbacks. 2007: 174. ISBN 978-0-8050-8663-8. The opposition made several arguments. The citizenship provision was unconstitutional, they contended, and would grant citizenship, not only to freed slaves, but to Indians living off their reservations, to Chinese born in the United States, and even to gypsies. [Illinois Senator Lyman] Trumbull agreed that it would, opening a chorus of cries that the bill would cede California to China and make America a mongrel nation.
Law Library of Congress: Fourteenth Amendment and Citizenship. Library of Congress. [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於2013-03-03）. 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. [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於2013-03-03）. 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.
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2890 (1866-5-30). "I am really desirous to have a legal definition of 'Citizenship of the United States.' What does it mean? What is its length and breadth? ... Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? ... Why, sir, there are nations of people with whom theft is a virtue and falsehood a merit.... It is utterly and totally impossible to mingle all the various families of men, from the lowest form of the Hottentot up to the highest Caucasian, in the same society.... and in my judgment there should be some limitation, some definition to this term 'citizen of the United States.'"
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2892 (1866-5-30). "And yet by a constitutional amendment you propose to declare the Utes, the Tabahuaches, and all those wild Indians to be citizens of the United States, the great Republic of the world, whose citizenship should be a title as proud as that of king, and whose danger is that you may degrade that citizenship."
Ho (2006), p. 372. "But although there was virtual consensus that birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of Indian tribal members, a majority of Senators saw no need for clarification."
Wydra, Elizabeth. Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional Guarantee(PDF). American Constitution Society for Law and Policy: 6. 2009 [2013-12-09]. （原始內容(PDF)存檔於2013-07-30）. For example, Senator Cowan expressed concern that the proposal would expand the number （原文如此） 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.
Ho (2006), p. 370. "[Senator Howard's] understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard's colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment—indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children."
Salyer, Lucy E. Wong Kim Ark: The Contest Over Birthright Citizenship. Martin, David; Schuck, Peter (編). Immigration Stories. New York: Foundation Press. 2005. ISBN 1-58778-873-X.
Meyler, Bernadette. The Gestation of Birthright Citizenship, 1868–1898 States' Rights, the Law of Nations, and Mutual Consent. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal. Spring 2001, 15: 521–525.
Woodworth (1896), p. 538. "It is significant that since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the question has arisen simply with reference to Chinese and Indians."
"Native Americans and Eskimos", 7 FAM 1117(a). "Before U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the only occasion on which the Supreme Court had considered the meaning of the 14th Amendment's phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States was in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)."
Woodworth (1896), p. 537. "On the other hand, the Supreme Court, in the Slaughter-house cases, used language which indicates that it then considered the provision as declaratory of the doctrine of the law of nations."
Woodworth (1896), p. 538. "The Supreme Court, singular to say, has never directly passed on the political status of children born in this country of foreign parents. The question was not directly involved in the Slaughter-house cases, and what the court there stated is, therefore, dictum, and was so treated by Judge Morrow in the Wong Kim Ark case."
Semonche (1978), p. 112. "Gray then sidestepped language in earlier opinions of the Court that said children born of alien parents are not citizens by saying, in effect, that such conclusions were gratuitous statements not necessary to the decisions in those cases and therefore entitled to no weight as precedent."
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 649. "This was a writ of habeas corpus ... in behalf of Wong Kim Ark, who alleged that he ... was born at San Francisco in 1873 ...."
First page of testimony given by Wong Kim Ark at an immigration hearing for his eldest son, Wong Yoke Fun, on 1910-12-6. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno, California. (Wong Kim Ark gives his birthdate as "T. C. 10, 9th month, 7th day"—a Chinese imperial calendar date said in the transcript of the testimony to correspond to October 20, 1871.)
Affidavit signed by Wong Kim Ark on November 5, 1894. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno, California. (Wong gives his age as 23.)
First page of testimony given by Wong Kim Ark at an immigration hearing for his third son, Wong Yook Thue, on 1925-3-20. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno, California. (Wong Kim Ark gives his age as 56. The immigration board also acknowledges the presence at the hearing of Wong Yook Thue's "prior landed alleged brother Wong Yook Sue".)
First page of testimony given by Wong Kim Ark at an immigration hearing for his youngest son, Wong Yook Jim, on July 23, 1926. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno, California. (Wong Kim Ark gives his age as 57.)
Davis, Lisa. The Progeny of Citizen Wong. SF Weekly. 1998-11-04 [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於2013-05-21）. Wong Kim Ark spent most of his life as a cook in various Chinatown restaurants. In 1894, Wong visited his family in China.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 650. "Because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the State of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons and subjects of the Emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China."
Collins, George D. Citizenship by Birth. American Law Review. 1895-05-06, 29: 385–394. ...[W]ere it not for the fact that the executive department of the general government has apparently acquiesced in Judge Field's [Look Tin Sing] decision as a correct interpretation of the law, we might well be indifferent to what he did or did not decide in the particular case before the Circuit Court, knowing as we do that when the question is ultimately brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, Judge Field's views will not be sustained.
Woodworth (1898), p. 556. "From this refusal to permit him to land, a writ of habeas corpus was sued out in the United States District Court .... [T]hat court discharged Wong Kim Ark on the ground that he was a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth in this country, and that the Chinese Exclusion Acts were therefore inapplicable to him."
Woodworth (1896), p. 536. "In the United States, the [citizenship] question must depend upon the interpretation to be given to the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, but the peculiar language of a phrase in that provision renders it a somewhat debatable point as to whether the provision was intended to be declaratory of the common law or of the international doctrine."
Woodworth (1898), p. 555. "While the question before the Supreme Court was, what constitutes citizenship of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, still the peculiar phraseology of the citizenship clause of that Amendment necessarily involved the further and controlling proposition as to what that clause was declaratory of; whether it was intended to be declaratory of the common-law or of the international doctrine."
Rodriguez (2009), pp. 1364–1366. "[W]hat weight do we assign the Supreme Court's first attempts to interpret the [Citizenship Clause] after its passage (the extension of the Citizenship clause to children of immigrants not eligible for citizenship in Wong Kim Ark)? ... and ambiguity as to whether the Clause extended to the children of Chinese immigrants persisted until the Supreme Court interpreted the Clause in Wong Kim Ark."
In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 F. at 391. "That this last sentence, which is the expression relied on by counsel for the government, is mere dictum, is plain from what has been stated as the issue involved in those cases."
Woodworth (1896), p. 537. "The rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, with respect to the political status of Indians is, however, not applicable to that of Chinese, or persons other than Chinese, born here of foreign parents."
Woodworth (1896), p. 537. "The decisions, which have passed upon the political status of Chinese born here, were all rendered in the Ninth Circuit, and they hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to be declaratory of the common-law rule, and that birth in this country is sufficient to confer the right of citizenship."
In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 F. at 391. "That being so, the observations referred to and relied upon, however persuasive they may appear to be, cannot be accepted as declaring the law in this circuit, at least as against the authority of In re Look Tin Sing, where the question was squarely met and decisively settled."
The native-born Chinese are legally adjudged to be citizens. San Francisco Chronicle. 1896-01-04: 12. Judge Morrow decided yesterday that a Chinese, though a laborer, if born in this country, is a citizen of the United States, and as such cannot lose his right to land here again after leaving the country.使用|accessdate=需要含有|url= (幫助)
Order （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館） of the District Court of the United States, Northern District of California, "In the Matter of Wong Kim Ark", 1896-1-3, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved 2011-7-17.
Woodworth (1898), p. 556. "Upon a hearing duly had, that [district] court discharged Wong Kim Ark on the ground that he was a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth in this country, and that the Chinese Exclusion Acts were therefore inapplicable to him."
In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 F. at 392. "Arriving at the conclusion, as I do, after careful investigation and much consideration, that the supreme court has as yet announced no doctrine at variance with that contained in the Look Tin Sing decision and the other cases alluded to, I am constrained to follow the authority and law enunciated in this circuit.... The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority.... From the law as announced and the facts as stipulated, I am of opinion （原文如此） that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment."
Woodworth (1896), p. 554. "I understand that the Wong Kim Ark case will be appealed to the Supreme Court, and, therefore, this at once delicate and important question will receive the consideration of that able tribunal, and the subject be set at rest so far as the existing law is concerned."
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 652. "The [district] court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States. The United States appealed to this court...."
Ashton, J. Hubley. Lincolniana: A Glimpse of Lincoln in 1864. Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society. 1976-2, 69 (1): 67–69. The reminiscence printed below was written by J. Hubley Ashton, assistant attorney general of the United States from 1864 to 1869.請檢查|date=中的日期值 (幫助)
Woodworth (1898), p. 556. "Mr. Justice Gray wrote the prevailing opinion, which was concurred in by all the justices excepting Mr. Chief Justice Fuller and Mr. Justice Harlan, both of whom dissented. Mr. Justice McKenna, not having been a member of the court when the arguments took place, did not participate in the decision."
Kirkland, Brooke. Limiting the Application of Jus Soli: The Resulting Status of Undocumented Children in the United States. Buffalo Human Rights Law Review. 2006, 12: 200.
Woodworth (1898), p. 559. "In arriving at the conclusion that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States, although born in this country of foreign parents, the court uses the following language...."
Bouvier, John. Citizen. Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia 1. Kansas City, MO: Vernon Law Book Company: 490. 1914 [2013-05-13]. （原始內容存檔於2021-03-08）.
Martin, David; Schuck, Peter. Immigration Stories. New York: Foundation Press. 2005: 75. ISBN 978-1-58778-873-4. In its analysis of the nature of national jurisdiction, the Court relied heavily on Chief Justice John Marshall's broad statement....
Woodworth (1898), p. 559. "The refusal of Congress to permit the naturalization of Chinese persons cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the constitutional declaration that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Bouvier, John. Chinese. Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia 1. Kansas City, MO: Vernon Law Book Co.: 482. 1914 [2013-05-13]. （原始內容存檔於2020-10-30）.
Marshal （原文如此） B. Woodworth Inducted into Office. San Francisco Chronicle. 1901-03-20: 14. Marshall B. Woodworth, who was recently appointed United States Attorney for the Northern district of California ... took the oath of office yesterday before Judge Morrow in the United States Circuit Court.使用|accessdate=需要含有|url= (幫助)
Marshall B. Woodworth Killed. New York Times. 1943-04-19: 21. Marshall B. Woodworth, 66, former United States attorney in San Francisco, was struck and killed by an automobile yesterday.使用|accessdate=需要含有|url= (幫助)
Yale Law Journal. Jetsam and Flotsam: Citizenship of Chinaman Born in United States. Central Law Journal (St. Louis: Central Law Journal Company). 1898, 46: 519. Although hopelessly in the minority, Chief Justice Fuller, with whom Mr. Justice Harlan agrees, dissents from this opinion, and, upon what appears to be the better view, holds that the common law of England does not control the question under discussion.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 709. "The framers of the Constitution were familiar with the distinctions between the Roman law and the feudal law, between obligations based on territoriality and those based on the personal and invisible character of origin, and there is nothing to show that, in the matter of nationality, they intended to adhere to principles derived from regal government, which they had just assisted in overthrowing. Manifestly, when the sovereignty of the Crown was thrown off and an independent government established, every rule of the common law and every statute of England obtaining in the Colonies in derogation of the principles on which the new government was founded was abrogated."
Eastman (2006), p. 2. "The positively phrased 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States might easily have been intended to describe a broader grant of citizenship than the negatively phrased language from the 1866 Act.... But the relatively sparse debate we have regarding this provision of the Fourteenth Amendment does not support such a reading."
"Findings and Decree" denying Wong Yoke Fun's application for admission to the United States. 1910-12-27. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno, California.
Last page of the transcript of Wong Yook Thue's immigration hearing, showing that he is being admitted to the United States. 1925-3-20. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno, California. (This page also mentions that "another alleged son Wong Yook Seu （原文如此）" was refused admission to the U.S. in 1924, but was "subsequently landed by the Department on appeal".)
Last page of the transcript of Wong Yook Jim's immigration hearing, showing that he is being admitted to the United States. 1926-7-23. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno, California.
Wadley, James B. Indian Citizenship and the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the United States Constitution: An Alternative to the Problems of the Full Faith and Credit and Comity?. Southern Illinois University Law Journal. Fall 2006, 31: 47.
Haas, Theodore. The Legal Aspects of Indian Affairs from 1887 to 1957. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications). 1957-5, 311: 12–22. JSTOR 1032349. doi:10.1177/000271625731100103. 請檢查|date=中的日期值 (幫助)
"Native Americans and Eskimos", 7 FAM 1117(b). "The Act of June 2, 1924 was the first comprehensive law relating to the citizenship of Native Americans."
See, e.g., Rogers v. Bellei, 401（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 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（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 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（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 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（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 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...."
Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 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（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 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....'"
Plyler v. Doe, 457（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 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."
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."
Regan v. King, 134 F.2d 413 （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館） (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."
Nolos v. Holder, 611 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 2010). "Nolos urges that his parents acquired United States citizenship at birth because the Philippines were under the dominion and control of the United States at the time of their births. But as have the Ninth and the Second Circuits before us ... we decline to give Wong Kim Ark such an expansive interpretation. As the Second Circuit explained, the question of the territorial scope of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was not before the court in Wong Kim Ark." See also Rabang v. INS, 35 F.3d 1449, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994), and Valmonte v. INS, 136 F.3d 914, 920 (2nd Cir. 1998).
Halagao, Avelino J. Citizens Denied: A Critical Examination of the Rabang Decision Rejecting United States Citizenship Claims by Persons Born in the Philippines During the Territorial Period. UCLA Asian Pacific American Law Journal. 1998, 5: 77.
Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2003). "[O]ne rule that Congress should rethink ... is awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States (... United States v. Wong Kim Ark ...), including the children of illegal immigrants whose sole motive in immigrating was to confer U.S. citzienship on their as yet unborn children.... We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children.... A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule ... but I doubt it.... Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.... Our [judges'] hands, however, are tied. We cannot amend the statutory provisions on citizenship and asylum."
"'Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States'", 7 FAM 1111(d). "All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth. ... Pursuant to [Wong Kim Ark]: (a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that (b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States."
'Border Baby' boom strains S. Texas. Houston Chronicle. 2006-09-24 [2011-07-17]. （原始內容存檔於2013-04-03）. 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.
Eastman (2006), pp. 3–4. "Such was the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause initially given by the Supreme Court, and it was the correct interpretation. As Thomas Cooley noted in his treatise, 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States 'meant full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens are generally subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government.'"
Eastman (2006), p. 4. "Justice Gray simply failed to appreciate what he seemed to have understood in Elk [v. Wilkins], namely, that there is a difference between territorial jurisdiction, on the one hand, and the more complete, allegiance-obliging jurisdiction that the Fourteenth Amendment codified, on the other."
Eastman (2006), p. 6. "Indeed, Congress has by its own actions with respect to Native Americans—both before and after this Court's decision in Wong Kim Ark—rejected the claim that the Citizenship Clause itself confers citizenship merely by accident of birth. None of these citizenship acts would have been necessary—indeed, all would have been redundant—under the expansive view of the Citizenship Clause propounded by Justice Gray."
Indians and Invaders: The Citizenship Clause and Illegal Aliens(PDF). University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania). 2008-3, 10 (3): 509 [2011-07-17]. （原始內容(PDF)存檔於2011-06-16）. The Court has not revisited Wong Kim Ark, but Schuck and Smith offer a reading of the Citizenship Clause that connects the exclusions to birthright citizenship with a principle of reciprocal consent or allegiance.請檢查|date=中的日期值 (幫助)
Graglia, Lino. Birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens: an irrational public policy. Texas Review of Law and Politics (Austin, TX: University of Texas, Austin). 2009, 14 (1): 10.
Wood, Charles. Losing Control of America's Future—The Census, Birthright Citizenship, and Illegal Aliens. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1999, 22: 465. The needed reforms should be completed expeditiously.... [I]n every week that passes thousands more children of illegal aliens are born in this country, and each is now granted citizenship.... If these reforms are not accomplished one way or another soon, 'We the People of the United States' risk losing control of the nation's future.
Rodriguez, Cristina M. The Second Founding: The Citizenship Clause, Original Meaning, and the Egalitarian Unity of the Fourteenth Amendment. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 2009, 11.
Ho (2006), p. 372. "Repeal proponents ... quote Howard's introductory remarks to state that birthright citizenship 'will not, of course, include ... foreigners.' But that reads Howard's reference to 'aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers' out of the sentence. It also renders completely meaningless the subsequent dialogue between Senators Cowan and Conness over the wisdom of extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants and Gypsies."
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. at 243. "I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically 'within the jurisdiction' of a state."
Ho (2006), p. 374. "This sweeping language [in Wong Kim Ark] reaches all aliens regardless of immigration status. To be sure, the question of illegal aliens was not explicitly presented in Wong Kim Ark. But any doubt was put to rest in Plyler v. Doe...."
Glen, Patrick J. Wong Kim Ark and Sentencia que Declara Constitucional la Ley General de Migración 285-04 in Comparative Perspective: Constitutional Interpretation, Jus Soli Principles, and Political Morality. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. Fall 2007, 39 (1): 67–109. JSTOR 40176768.
Rodriguez, Cristina M. The Second Founding: The Citizenship Clause, Original Meaning, and the Egalitarian Unity of the Fourteenth Amendment. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 2009, 11: 1363–1371.
Salyer, Lucy E. Wong Kim Ark: The Contest Over Birthright Citizenship. Martin, David; Schuck, Peter (編). Immigration Stories. New York: Foundation Press. 2005. ISBN 1-58778-873-X.
Woodworth, Marshall B. Citizenship of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. American Law Review (St. Louis: Review Pub. Company). 1896, 30: 535–555.
