美国诉黄金德案
引用

↑  Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372（英语：） 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...."
1 2 3  Plyler v. Doe, 457（英语：） 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."
↑  . New York Times. 1942-06-27: 6.
↑  . New York Times. 1942-07-03: 7.
↑  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 （页面存档备份，存于） (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."
↑  Regan v. King, cert. denied, 319 U.S. 753 (1943).
↑  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. . UCLA Asian Pacific American Law Journal. 1998, 5: 77.
1 2  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."
1 2  "'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."
↑  Ho (2006), p. 366.  "There is increasing interest in repealing birthright citizenship for the children of aliens—especially undocumented persons."
↑  . Houston Chronicle. 2006-09-24  [2011-07-17]. （原始内容存档于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.
↑  Wong, William. . San Francisco Examiner. 1998-04-08  [2011-09-10].
↑  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."
↑   (PDF). University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania). 2008-3, 10 (3): 509  [2011-07-17]. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于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.  请检查|date=中的日期值 (帮助)
↑  Graglia, Lino. . Texas Review of Law and Politics (Austin, TX: University of Texas, Austin). 2009, 14 (1): 10.
↑  Wood, Charles. . 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.
1 2 3  Rodriguez, Cristina M. . University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 2009, 11.
↑  Ho, James C.  (PDF). The Green Bag. 2006, 9 (4): 368  [2012-01-06]. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于2010-10-30）.
↑  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（英语：） U.S. 202 (1982).
1 2  Eisgruber, Christopher L. . New York University Law Review. 1997, 72: 54–96.
↑  Ho, James C. . University of Richmond Law Review. 2008-3, 42: 973. （原始内容存档于2012-04-02）.  请检查|date=中的日期值 (帮助)
↑  Dunklee, Dennis R.; Shoop, Robert J. . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 2006: 241  [2013-05-14]. ISBN 978-1-4129-2594-5. （原始内容存档于2020-11-01）.
↑  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...."
↑  Ngai, Mae M. . Fordham Law Review. 2007, 75: 2524  [2013-05-13]. （原始内容存档于2021-02-25）.
↑  Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 Archive.today的存檔，存档日期2012-07-17, H.R. 1868, 111th Cong. 2009-4-2.
↑  Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 （页面存档备份，存于）, H.R. 140, 112th Cong. 2011-1-5.
↑  Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 （页面存档备份，存于）, S. 723, 112th Cong. 2011-4-5.
↑  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to United States citizenship （页面存档备份，存于）, S.J.Res. 6, 111th Cong. 2009-1-16.
↑  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to United States citizenship[], S.J.Res. 2, 112th Cong. 2011-1-25.
↑  . National Public Radio. 2010-05-28  [2012-01-29]. （原始内容存档于2021-05-06）.
↑  . FOX News. 2011-02-23  [2012-01-29]. （原始内容存档于2015-10-01）.
↑  . American Civil Liberties Union. 2011-01-27  [2012-01-29]. （原始内容存档于2013-08-15）.