The little-known history of birthright citizenship
Norman Wong is a great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, whose 1898 Supreme Court victory enshrined birthright citizenship through the 14th Amendment. (Brian L. Frank/For The Washington Post)
Norman Wong didn't know his family's history for most of his life. Now, the 75-year-old retired carpenter is fighting to save birthright citizenship and his great-grandfather's legacy.
His great-grandfather was Wong Kim Ark, a cook born to Chinese immigrants in San Francisco in 1870. After visiting family in China, Wong Kim Ark was denied reentry into the United States. The ensuing court battle made it up to the U.S. Supreme Court and enshrined the right to citizenship for almost any child born on U.S. soil, regardless of where their parents came from.
More than a century later, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to limit birthright citizenship. On Thursday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments about the legal battle over the order. Norman Wong hopes that sharing his family story can influence that fight.
Today's episode was produced by Laura Benshoff, with help from Emma Talkoff. It was edited by Maggie Penman and mixed by Sean Carter.
If you want to learn more about Wong Kim Ark and the landmark Supreme Court case that affirmed birthright citizenship, check out our podcast 'Constitutional.'
Subscribe to The Washington Post here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court to hear case on IQ tests and death penalty next term
The Supreme Court will hear a case next term centered on the role of multiple IQ scores in determining an Alabama murderer's eligibility for the death penalty, according to a list issued by the court late Friday. In Hamm v. Smith, the state of Alabama is arguing that Joseph Smith — who was sentenced to death for a murder in 1997 — should be executed because he has not proved that his IQ is 70 or below, as required by state law. However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith's death sentence after ruling he is intellectually disabled because the score on one of his IQ tests could fall below 70 when accounting for margin of error. Smith had obtained five IQ scores that ranged from 72 to 78. The Supreme Court justices agreed to hear Hamm v. Smith to determine a limited question: 'Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim,' referring to the 2002 landmark decision Atkins v. Virginia, which ruled that executing those with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In November, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision to remand the case for further consideration. In it, the justices said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — which had affirmed the lower court's decision to vacate Smith's death sentence — had been unclear in why it had issued that decision. In February, the state of Alabama again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying the Eleventh Circuit 'watered down the most objective prong of the test, overrode Alabama's definition of intellectual disability, and shattered Atkins's promise to leave meaningful discretion to the States.' 'This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests. There is no way to conclude from these five numbers that Smith's true IQ is likely to be 70 or below,' the state of Alabama argued, also adding that evaluating multiple IQ scores is 'complicated' and that the Supreme Court has not specified how to do it. 'Smith could take hundreds of IQ tests, score 75 on all of them, yet his IQ still 'could be' 70, according to the panel [the Eleventh Circuit], because every test could have erred by 5 points. The panel failed to appreciate that multiple tests together can provide a more accurate estimate than each test alone,' the state argued. The Supreme Court's next term is scheduled to begin in October. The list of new cases was not expected until Monday morning, but email notifications about the list were inadvertently sent Friday evening because of a technical glitch, so the court chose to release the list of cases earlier than scheduled. In a statement that accompanied the early release, court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said the notifications were sent prematurely because of an 'apparent software malfunction.' Justin Jouvenal contributed to this report.
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
How Justice Clarence Thomas led SCOTUS to kill DEI
Clarence Thomas has spent his professional life trying to return American law to the Declaration of Independence's founding promise that individuals should be judged as individuals rather than as members of racial, gender, or ethnic groups. It seems that his peers on the high court have been listening. Thomas' belief in individual rights precedes his time on the court. For example, in a 1985 law review article, Thomas discussed his daily responsibilities of enforcing the nation's civil rights laws as chairman of the EEOC. He wrote: "I intend to take EEO enforcement back to where it started by defending the rights of individuals who are hurt by discriminatory practices. … Those who insist on arguing that the principle of equal opportunity, the cornerstone of civil rights, means preferences for certain groups have relinquished their roles as moral and ethical leaders in this area." SUPREME COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF STRAIGHT OHIO WOMAN WHO CLAIMED DISCRIMINATIONJustice Thomas has reiterated that American law protects individual rather than groups rights throughout his three-and-a-half decades on the nation's highest court. In 1995's Missouri v. Jenkins, for instance, Thomas became the first Supreme Court justice to directly criticize Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Although he called state-mandated segregation "despicable," he said that the Court was wrong in 1954 to rely on disputable social science evidence to declare segregation unconstitutional rather than invoking the "constitutional principle" that "the government must treat citizens as individuals, and not as members of racial, ethnic or religious groups." Justice Thomas has made similar pronouncements in many other judicial opinions. His concurring opinion in 2007's Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 is perhaps the strongest articulation of his conception of equality: "The dissent attempts to marginalize the notion of a colorblind Constitution by consigning it to me and Members of today's plurality. … But I am quite comfortable in the company I keep. My view of the Constitution is Justice Harlan's view in Plessy: 'Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.'" More recently, Justice Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion in the Supreme Court's 2023 decisions holding that colleges and universities cannot consider race in admissions decisions that "While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law." Last week's Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services signals that proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs should stop pretending that they are complying with the law. After all, one of the most liberal members of the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in an opinion for a unanimous Court that the "background circumstances" rule imposed by several lower courts of appeal requiring members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII discrimination claim is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and the Supreme Court's anti-discrimination precedents. CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONJustice Jackson's opinion for the Court reversing the lower courts might as well have been penned by Justice Thomas himself. Justice Jackson quoted the text of Title VII that makes it illegal to take an adverse employment action against "any individual." She further quoted a 2020 Supreme Court decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, that held that the "law's focus on individuals rather than groups [is] anything but academic." She added: "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone."Justice Thomas joined Justice Jackson's opinion for the Court "in full." But he also issued a concurring opinion in which he suggested that the "background circumstances" rule is not only inconsistent with the statutory text of Title VII but is "plainly at odds with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection." Most important for present purposes, Thomas made clear that if proponents of DEI are hoping that the Ames decision has nothing to do with their DEI programs, they are sorely mistaken. "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans," he wrote. "Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPWhen Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Court watchers openly speculated about who would replace him as the intellectual leader of the conservative legal movement. Clarence Thomas has unquestionably filled that role. After all, in Ames even Justice Thomas's liberal colleagues on the nation's highest court conceded that American law protects individual rather than group rights.
UPI
3 hours ago
- UPI
China to fast-track applications for rare-earth minerals to US, EU
A rare earth mine is in Ganxian county in central China's Jiangxi province. Photo by EPA-ESE June 7 (UPI) -- China has agreed to fast-track approvals for the shipment of rare earth minerals to the United States and some European Union nations. U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke Thursday about easing trade tensions. On Saturday, China's Minister Seceary Wang Wentao said his nation is "willing to establish a green channel for qualified applications to speed up approval." Details weren't given, including the speed of the process and which EU nations are included. China controls 90% of the global processing of rare earth minerals. Major deposits also are found in the United States, Australia and Russia. Smaller amounts are in Canada, India, South Africa and Southeast Asia. Rare earth minerals are in the Earth's crust, making them difficult to extract. They include lanthanide, scandium and yttrium, all on the Periodic Table of Elements. Some major minerals that contain rare earth elements are bastnasite, monazite, loparite and laterite clays. The first rare-earth mineral was discovered in 1787 -- gadolinite, a black mineral composed of cerium, yttrium, iron, silicon and other elements. U.S. needs rare earth minerals The minerals are critical to American industries and defense, including use in cars and fighter jets. Batteries contain the minerals Trump posted on Truth Social on Thursday "there should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of rare Earth products." On April 29, the United States and Ukraine created a Reconstruction Investment Fund that includes rare earth mineral rights in the European nation. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky were originally set to sign the minerals deal on Feb. 28, but the plan was scrapped after a tense exchange between them in the Oval Office in which Trump accused him of "gambling with World War III." The United States wants access to more than 20 raw materials in Ukraine, including some non-minerals, such as oil and natural gas, as well as titanium, lithium, graphite and manganese. The Chinese commerce ministry confirmed some applications have been approved without specifying industries covered. Some Chinese suppliers have recently received six-month export licenses, the American Chamber of Commerce in China said Friday, but it noted that there is a backlog of license applications. In a survey of member companies conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce in China late week, 75% say their stock would run out within three months, CNN reported. Jens Eskelund, the chamber president, said member companies were "still struggling" with the situation. "I hadn't realized just how important this rare earth card was before. Now the U.S. side is clearly anxious and eager to resolve this issue," he said a video on Thursday. "But of course, we'll link this issue to others -- the U.S. is restricting China on chips and jet engines, then China certainly has every reason to make use of this card. "As for whether China will change its rare earth export control policy, that probably still needs to be negotiated in more detail," Jin added. Trump said Xi and himself "straightened out" some points related to rare earth magnets, calling it "very complex stuff." The U.S. federal government said China had reneged on its promise made in Geneva on May 12. Delegations from Beijing and Washington plan to meet in Great Britain on Monday for trade negotiations. At the height of tariff war, China had imposed export restrictions on some minerals on April 4. Trump two days planned a 120% "reciprocal" tax on top of 25% levy on Chinese goods. But one week later it paused the bigger tariffs, including on other countries for 90 days. European nations' needs China's commerce ministry pledged to address the EU's concerns and establish a "green channel" for eligible applications to expedite approvals. He went to Brussels, Belgium, earlier this week and met with European Union's trade commissioner, Maros Sefcovic. It's a problem for China and the EU. Sefcovic said the pause was slowing deliveries for manufacturers of a wide range of items from cars to washing machines. Wang urged the EU to "take effective measures to facilitate, safeguard and promote compliant trade of high-tech products to China." On Friday, the European Chamber, a Beijing lobby group, warned progress had "not been sufficient" to prevent severe supply chain disruptions for many companies.
