US President Trump said in an interview with US media Axios on the 29th local time that he was planning to sign an executive order to abolish the policy of children born to non-US citizens can acquire citizenship as long as they are born in the United States. After the announcement, all sectors of the United States were highly concerned.
The birthright citizenship, also known as landing citizenship, was written into the U.S. Constitution as the 14th Amendment in 1868, mainly to protect the equal rights and interests of released slaves after the Civil War. The specific expression is: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to their jurisdiction are citizens of the United States and the state in which they live. That is to say, regardless of parental status and nationality, as long as they were born in the United States territory, they are citizens of the United States.
Corresponding to birth citizenship is consanguinity citizenship, requiring that parents must have at least one of their own citizens in order to have their own citizenship. Citizenship of consanguinity is adopted by most countries in the world, only more than 30 countries adopt birth citizenship, and mostly concentrated in the Americas, such as the United States neighboring Canada and Mexico.
Little-known is that behind this important civil right affecting millions of immigrants, there is a history that has been forgotten, but which has had a tremendous impact on American civil rights. The Washington Post reported on October 30 that it was Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese named 120 years ago, who won a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court, laying the foundation for the centuries-old use of landed citizenship.
The shadow of the Exclusion Act
After the American Civil War, Congress passed the first Civil Rights Act in 1866, which established equal rights for all citizens. Two years later, the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution was adopted. For the first time, the Amendment explicitly defines citizenship: Any person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen of the United States and the state in which he lives.
In theory, according to this clause, any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States. However, since the amendment was mainly aimed at black people who were slaves before the war, its universality for other races remained questionable. Especially the Anti-Chinese Act introduced in 1882 questioned whether Chinese people belonged to the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment under the jurisdiction of the United States. The confusion of jurisprudence leads to the fact that the application of law at immigration ports varies from person to person and from time to time.
The Chinese Exclusion Act passed by the United States Congress in 1882 is the only congressional legislation that openly discriminates against race in the history of the United States. The Chinese Exclusion Act set two records: the first legislation banning a race from entering the United States and the first legislation excluding a race from becoming a U.S. citizen. The legislation was originally only valid for 10 years, but the validity period was extended again and again. It was not until 1943 that the United States abolished the 60-year-old Chinese Exclusion Act in order to unite China as an ally of the Anti-Japanese War.
According to the Chinese Exclusion Act, Chinese Americans are legally excluded from becoming American citizens, and they will always be segregated and live in the so-called Chinatown for their own survival. Not only can new Chinese immigrants no longer come to the United States, but even Chinese in the United States, their wives and children can not visit or reunite in the United States, let alone form new families in the United States. No Chinese leaving the United States can return to the United States freely. Even if the Chinese once became citizens, they would be deprived of the citizenship of the United States because of their departure.
Golden rule decision
To find out what happened to her great-grandfather, she went to the National Archives for information. When she arrived at the archives, the staff looked at her in exclamation. Wow, this is Goldens great-granddaughter!
And I dont know why they reacted like this. What kind of person is Golden Virtue? Sandra said.
More than 20 years later, when he returned to the United States, the immigration officer agreed to enter the United States. The reason is: according to the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution, Huang Jinde was born in the United States and is an American. However, four years later, Jinde returned to Taishan to visit his parents. When he returned to the United States, he was refused entry by the Customs on the basis of the Chinese Exclusion Act and was detained in San Francisco Port. The reason for the immigration officer is that Golden Morals parents are not Americans. Even if he was born in the United States, he is not an American, and he is subject to the exclusion of China Act.
Kim Tak refused to accept the decision of the US Immigration Department and began a 4 year lawsuit.
Despite the courts ruling in favour of Golden Virtue, the Customs was required to immediately allow Golden Virtue to enter the country as an American citizen. However, the US government has appealed to the Federal Supreme Court for refusing to accept defeat.
It was not until 1898 that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6:2 to allow Golden Virtue to enter the United States as a citizen. However, the Supreme Court justices did not agree. The minority, headed by Justice Fuller, held that the 14th Amendment stipulated that subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant that foreign parents were not affected by any foreign forces, so that the children born when they were traveling through the United States were not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
They believe that the situation of the Chinese is different from that of the Fourteenth Amendment aimed at blacks. Chinese people have strong cultural traditions that make them unable to integrate into the mainstream American society. Therefore, the Chinese should be excluded from the scope of application of the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, the majority opinion of the six justices was that Jindes parents were formerly members of the Chinese emperor, but they had a permanent residence in the United States and were not employed by any Chinese government agencies or missions. Their children born in the United States should be citizens of the United States. The judgment emphasized that Golden Virtue was born, grew up, and had a regular and legitimate occupation (restaurant cook) in the United States, which conformed to the definition of subject to American jurisdiction: living entirely under the jurisdiction of American sovereign law, and not maintaining an effective loyalty to any other country.
In addition, the judgment also found that the Anti-Chinese Act, which came into force in 1882, had no historical traceability and should not apply to Golden Virtue, born in the United States in 1873. Therefore, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the United States government lost the lawsuit.
The right to acquire citizenship is not just gold morality and his 3 sons. The judgment actually clarified the application of the Fourteenth Amendment and the principle of place of birth to the Chinese. Previously, because of the existence of the Exclusion Act, new Chinese immigrants were hard to obtain civil rights. The proliferation of American and Chinese people has also been severely restricted. However, the Golden Virtue Case changed this situation, won space for the legitimate survival of the Chinese people, and opened a legal precedent for tens of millions of immigrants to the United States.
It can be said that this lawsuit not only guarantees the livelihood of a certain generation of Chinese, but also contributes greatly to the development, status and dignity of Chinese descendants overseas for more than 100 years.
Trumps change is no easy task.
Since the new century, with the deepening exchanges between China and the United States, birth citizenship has once again become a topic of concern to Chinese people. In 2006, the United States opened Chinese tourist visa to the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Immigration Administration said that China had become the largest immigration importer to the United States, and that many mothers-to-be from first-tier cities had also experienced a surge in the phenomenon of going to the United States to give birth.
The term anchor child used to refer specifically to children born to illegal immigrants in the United States, that is, children whose parents are not Americans (parents do not join the United States), while children born in the United States, like an anchor rooted in the United States, can make a family become Americans.
In recent years, Americans who oppose birth citizenship believe that a large number of illegal immigrant children born in the United States have brought heavy burden to the welfare, education and other resources of the United States, unfair to naturalists and taxpayers who are otherwise legally naturalized and whose relatives can emigrate to the United States by relying on their relatives. In fact, it is equivalent to encouraging illegal immigrants in disguised form.
Early in his presidency, Trump said he would push for a dramatic reduction in the number of relative immigrants under the new immigration reform policy, which would allow only spouses and children to come to the United States. Some Chinese Americans are concerned that once Trumps immigration reform bill is passed, many Chinese immigrantsdesire to receive their parents support in the United States through legal channels may be difficult to achieve.
However, in recent years, there have also been negative perceptions of illegal immigration among Chinese, and many of them are in favour of amending the Constitution on the issue of birth citizenship. In any case, it is no easy task for Trump to terminate the birth of citizenship through presidential decree. Experts in the U.S. legal profession generally believe that Trump would be immediately challenged by the law if he did so and might eventually have to refer to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the issue - a long process. Hua Jianping, an American Chinese sociologist, told Pengbao News that Trump put forward this statement just one week before the polling day of the midterm elections. The purpose is to attract his basic plate support and make full use of his ability to mobilize the media and his administrative advantages as President. The agenda is to suppress the Democratic Partys agenda. The source of this article: surging news editor: Gu Ying _NN6577
In any case, it is no easy task for Trump to terminate the birth of citizenship through presidential decree. Experts in the U.S. legal profession generally believe that Trump would be immediately challenged by the law if he did so and might eventually have to refer to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the issue - a long process.
Hua Jianping, an American Chinese sociologist, told Pengbao News that Trump put forward this statement just one week before the polling day of the midterm elections. The purpose is to attract his basic plate support and make full use of his ability to mobilize the media and his administrative advantages as President. The agenda is to suppress the Democratic Partys agenda.