Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to conferment of citizenship under the Constitution of United States. 
• This judgment was given by a majority of 6:2. The lone dissent was given by Justice Melville Fuller. The majority opinion was given by Justice Horace Gray and joined by five other justices: Brewer, Brown, Shiras Jr., White, and Peckham.  

Facts 

• Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, California, United States in 1873 and worked as a laborer. 
• His parents were Chinese subjects under the emperor of China but had established permanent residence in San Francisco and were running a business there when he was born. 
• His parents lived in the United States from before his birth until 1890, never working in any diplomatic or official capacity for China. 
• Wong Kim Ark maintained continuous residence in California since his birth and never renounced his U.S. citizenship or acquired citizenship elsewhere. 
• Neither he nor his parents acting on his behalf ever took any action to exclude him from U.S. citizenship. 
• In 1890, at around age 17, Wong Kim Ark made a temporary visit to China but returned the same year and was allowed entry as a native-born citizen. 
• He remained in the United States until 1894, when at approximately age 21, he made another temporary visit to China. 
• When he attempted to return to the United States in August 1895, he was denied entry solely on the grounds that he was not a U.S. citizen. 
• Both parties agree that if Wong Kim Ark is a U.S. citizen, the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which prohibit people of Chinese race (especially laborers) from entering the United States, cannot be applied to him. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether a child born in United States (U.S.) whose parents are of Chinese descent but having a permanent domicile and residence in United States becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of U.S. by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution? 

Observation  

• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark on March 28, 1898, in a 6-2 decision, stating he acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and had not lost it since. 
• The Court upheld jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth) and interpreted the Citizenship Clause according to English common law principles. 
• Under English common law, nearly all native-born children were subjects, with only four exceptions:  
  • Children born to foreign rulers or diplomats 
  • Children born on foreign public ships 
  • Children born to enemy forces occupying the territory 
  • Native American tribes "not taxed" 
• The Court determined that none of these exceptions applied to Wong Kim Ark, noting specifically that his parents were ordinary business people, not diplomatic officials. 
• The Court cited Chief Justice John Marshall's 1812 ruling in The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon (1812), which established that a nation's jurisdiction within its territory is "necessarily exclusive and absolute." 
• The Court determined that comments from the Slaughterhouse Cases regarding citizenship of non-citizen parents' children were not binding precedent. 
• The Court ruled that the Chinese Exclusion Act could not override the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, stating that laws must be "construed and executed in subordination to" the Constitution. 
• The majority opinion referenced Calvin's Case (1608) to support the principle that all people born within a sovereign's "allegiance" were subjects, including children of "aliens in amity" (friendly aliens). 

Conclusion

• This case has great significance in the jurisprudence shaping citizenship rights in India. 
• This judgment laid down the principle of birthright citizenship in United States.