美国诉黄金德案
引用

↑  . 中国政法大学出版社. 2016-12-01: 12. ISBN 9787562070795.
1 2  United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169（英语：） U.S. 649, 715 (1898).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7  Glen, Patrick J. . University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. Fall 2007, 39 (1): 67–109. JSTOR 40176768.
1 2 3 4  Epps, Garrett.  (pdf). American University Law Review. 2010, 60 (2): 329–388  [2013-12-09]. （原始内容存档于2013-01-12）.
↑  Schwartz, Matthias. . The New York Times. 2025-01-21  [2025-01-21].
↑  Woodworth, Marshall B. . American Law Review (St. Louis: Review Pub. Company). 1896, 30: 535–555.
1 2  "Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States", 7 FAM 1111(a).
↑  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. . Memoranda and Opinions. Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice. 1995-12-13  [2013-12-09]. （原始内容存档于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. 236 (N.Y. 1844).
↑  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."
1 2  . The Library of Congress.   [2013-12-09]. （原始内容存档于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....
↑  Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60（英语：） U.S. 393 (1857).
↑  Schwarz, Frederic D. . American Heritage (Rockville, MD: American Heritage Publishing). 2007-02-03, 58 (1)  [2012-06-14]. （原始内容存档于2012-06-14）.
↑  . Milestone Documents. 39th Cong., Sess. I, Chap. 31; 14 Stat. 27.  April 9, 1866.   [2013-12-09]. （原始内容存档于2013-12-03）.
↑  "Authorities", 7 FAM 1119(e).  "This rule was made part of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Statutes at Large 27)...."
↑  . The Online Library of Liberty.   [2013-12-09]. （原始内容存档于2013-05-20）.
↑  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. . 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.
↑  . 1866-02-02  [2013-12-09]. （原始内容存档于2021-04-12）. Congress has no power to make a citizen.... [only] to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
↑  . Library of Congress.   [2013-12-09]. （原始内容存档于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.
↑  任东来; 陈伟; 白雪峰; Charles J. McClain; Laurene Wu McClain. . 中国法制出版社. 2004年1月: 574. ISBN 7-80182-138-6.
↑  李道揆. . 商务印书馆. 1999: 775–799.
↑  Stimson, Frederic Jesup. . Clark, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange. 2004: 76  [2013-05-13]. ISBN 978-1-58477-369-6. （原始内容存档于2020-11-02）.
1 2 3  Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2890 （页面存档备份，存于） (1866-5-30).
↑  . Library of Congress.   [2013-12-09]. （原始内容存档于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. 2891 (1866-5-30).
↑  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."
↑  Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2897 (1866-5-30).
↑  Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 3149 （页面存档备份，存于） (1866-6-13).
↑  . The Library of Congress. 1868-07-28  [2013-12-09]. （原始内容存档于2021-03-08）.
↑  Liu, Goodwin.  (PDF). Yale Law Journal. 2006, 116: 349  [2013-12-09]. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于2011-07-06）.
↑  . Huffington Post.   [2013-12-09]. （原始内容存档于2013-03-27）.
↑  Wydra, Elizabeth.  (PDF). American Constitution Society for Law and Policy: 6. 2009  [2013-12-09]. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于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."
↑  Aynes, Richard L. . Akron Law Review. 2006, 39: 289  [2013-12-09]. [永久]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7  Salyer, Lucy E. . Martin, David; Schuck, Peter  (编). . New York: Foundation Press. 2005. ISBN 1-58778-873-X.
↑  Burlingame Treaty （页面存档备份，存于）, 16 Stat. 739.  1868-7-28.
↑  .   [2013-12-09]. （原始内容存档于2021-02-24）.
↑  Meyler, Bernadette. . Georgetown Immigration Law Journal. Spring 2001, 15: 521–525.
↑  Aarim-Heriot, Najia. . Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. 2003: 108–112. ISBN 0-252-02775-2.
↑  An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese. （页面存档备份，存于）  47th Cong., Sess. I, Chap. 126; 22 Stat. 58.  1882-5-6.
↑  Dake, B. Frank. . Albany Law Journal. 1905-9, 67 (9): 259–260.  请检查|date=中的日期值 (帮助)
↑  An act a supplement to an act entitled "An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese". 50th Cong., Sess. I, Chap. 60; 25 Stat. 504.  1888-10-1.
↑  An act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States. 52nd Cong., Sess. I, Chap. 60; 27 Stat. 25.  1892-5-5.
1 2 3 4  Elinson, Elaine; Yogi, Stan. . Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books. 2009. ISBN 978-1-59714-114-7.
↑  . Our Documents.   [2013-12-09]. （原始内容存档于2013-10-29）.
↑  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)."
1 2  Elk v. Wilkins, 112（英语：） U.S. 94 (1884).
↑  Urofsky, Melvin I.; Finkelman, Paul.  1 2nd. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2002  [2013-09-04]. ISBN 0-19-512635-1.  引文使用过时参数coauthor (帮助)
1 2  In re Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (D.Cal. 1884).  Thayer, James Bradley. . Charles W. Sever. 1894: 578–582  [2012-01-02].
1 2  麥禮謙數碼檔案 English/Chinese Glossary of Biographical and Institutional Names (Excel)  （页面存档备份，存于） https://himmarklai.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Biographical-Institutional-Glossary.xls （页面存档备份，存于）
↑  .   [2013-06-22]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-22）.
↑  Lee, Erika. . University of North Carolina Press. 2003: 103  [2012-01-02]. ISBN 978-0-8078-5448-8.
↑  Gee Fook Sing v. U.S., 49 F. 146 (9th Cir. 1892).
↑  Slaughter-House Cases, 83（英语：） U.S. 36 (1873).
1 2  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."
1 2 3  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."
1 2  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."
↑  转写自台山話发音：wong11 gim33 'ak3.
↑  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 ...."
1 2  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.)
1 2  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. . SF Weekly. 1998-11-04  [2013-12-09]. （原始内容存档于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.
1 2  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. . 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."
↑  
In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 F. 382 （页面存档备份，存于） 的存檔，存档日期2010-05-13. (N.D.Cal. 1896).
↑  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."
↑  In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 F. at 386.
↑  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."
↑  Slaughter-House Cases, 83（英语：） U.S. 36 (1873)
↑  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."
↑  In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 F. at 391.  "Nor does the interpretation of the phrase in question in the case of Elk v. Wilkins ... dispose of the matter."
↑  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."
↑  Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. at 74.
↑  . 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= (帮助)
↑  Order （页面存档备份，存于） 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...."
↑  Semonche, John E. . Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 1978: 111. ISBN 0-313-20314-8. LCCN 77-94745.
↑  Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 652 （页面存档备份，存于）.
↑  Ashton, J. Hubley. . 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.  请检查|date=中的日期值 (帮助)
↑  . Federal Judicial Center.   [2012-01-17]. （原始内容存档于2021-02-28）.
↑  Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 653.
↑  Semonche (1978), p. 111.  "Since [Associate Justice Joseph] McKenna did not hear the oral arguments, he did not participate in the decision."
↑  Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 732.  "MR. JUSTICE McKENNA, not having been a member of the court when this case was argued, took no part in the decision."
↑  American Society of International Law. . American Journal of International Law (New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co.). 1914, 8: 672  [2013-05-13]. （原始内容存档于2021-03-08）.
↑  . Washington Post. 1898-03-29: 11.
↑  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."
↑  Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 654.
1 2 3  Kirkland, Brooke. . 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. .  1. Kansas City, MO: Vernon Law Book Company: 490. 1914  [2013-05-13]. （原始内容存档于2021-03-08）.
↑  Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 681.
↑  Martin, David; Schuck, Peter. . 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....
↑  The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, 11（英语：） U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 (1812).
↑  Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 683.
↑  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."
↑  Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 699.
↑  Bouvier, John. .  1. Kansas City, MO: Vernon Law Book Co.: 482. 1914  [2013-05-13]. （原始内容存档于2020-10-30）.
↑  . 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= (帮助)
↑  . 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= (帮助)
1 2 3 4  Woodworth, Marshall B. . American Law Review (St. Louis: Review Pub. Company). 1898, 32: 554–561  [2013-05-12]. （原始内容存档于2020-10-30）.
1 2  Yale Law Journal. . 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 713.
↑  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."
1 2  Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 731.
↑  The question of whether the Constitution could override a treaty remained unresolved until a 1957 Supreme Court case, Reid v. Covert, 354（英语：） U.S. 1 (1957).
↑  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."
↑  Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 721.
↑  Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 725 n.2.
↑  Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 726.
↑  Przybyszewski, Linda. . Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. 1999: 120-121. ISBN 0-8078-2493-3.
↑  . San Francisco Chronicle. 1898-03-30: 6.
↑  "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. . Southern Illinois University Law Journal. Fall 2006, 31: 47.
↑  An Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue certificates of citizenship to Indians. （页面存档备份，存于）  Pub.L. 68–175; 43 Stat. 253.  June 2, 1924.
↑  Haas, Theodore. . 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.  请检查|date=中的日期值 (帮助)
↑  "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."
↑  An Act to repeal the Chinese Exclusion Acts, to establish quotas, and for other purposes. （页面存档备份，存于）  Pub.L. 78–199; 57 Stat. 600.  1943-12-17.
↑  An Act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes. （页面存档备份，存于）  Pub.L. 89–236; 79 Stat. 911.  1965-10-3.
↑  Low, Elaine.  (PDF). San Francisco: Japanese American Citizens League: 4. 2008  [2012-01-27]. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于2010-06-13）.
↑  See, e.g., Rogers v. Bellei, 401（英语：） 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."
1 2  See, e.g., Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356（英语：） 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（英语：） 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（英语：） 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（英语：） 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（英语：） 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（英语：） 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....'"