跳至內容

美國訴黃金德案

典範條目
本頁使用了標題或全文手工轉換
維基百科，自由的百科全書
（重新導向自合众国诉黄金德案）
合眾國訴黃金德案
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
美國最高法院
辯論：1897年3月5日、3月8日
判決：1898年3月28日
案件全名United States v. Wong Kim Ark
引註案號169 U.S. 649
18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890
既往案件從美國加利福尼亞北區聯邦地區法院上訴：71 F. 382
法庭判決
根據憲法第十四條修正案的公民權條款，凡在美國出生的兒童即成為美國公民
最高法院法官
首席大法官
梅爾維爾·富勒
法庭意見
多數意見霍里斯·格雷（英語：Horace Gray）
聯名：大衛·喬什亞·布魯爾（英語：David Josiah Brewer）、亨瑞·比林斯·布朗（英語：Henry Billings Brown）、小喬治·席拉斯（英語：George Shiras, Jr.）、愛德華·道格拉斯·懷特、魯弗斯·威勒·派克漢姆（英語：Rufus Wheeler Peckham）
不同意見梅爾維爾·富勒
聯名：約翰·馬歇爾·哈倫
約瑟夫·麥肯納（英語：Joseph McKenna）沒有參與該案件。
適用法條
美利堅合眾國憲法第十四條修正案

合眾國訴黃金德案[1]（英語：United States v. Wong Kim Ark）169 U.S. 649 (1898)，是一起美國聯邦最高法院判決所有美國境內出生者都是美國公民的里程碑式案例。判決在解讀美利堅合眾國憲法第十四條修正案的公民權條款上建立了重要的判決先例。

黃金德大約於1873年出生於三藩市，他的父母都是華人。一次出國旅行歸來時，移民局根據1882年5月6日通過的《排華法案》拒絕他入境。黃金德為此將政府告上法庭，挑戰政府拒絕承認其公民身份的做法。聯邦最高法院在判決中支持了他的意見，認定根據第十四條修正案，每一位在美國出生的人都是美國公民，即使他父母是外國人亦不例外，並且這樣的特權即使有聯邦國會通過的法律也不能剝奪。

此案件特別突出了對公民公款中一個短語準確含義理解的分歧，即一個在美國出生的人是否符合「並受其管轄」的要求從而獲得公民權。最高法院的多數意見總結認為這一短語的意思是受到美國法律的管轄。在這一基礎上，第十四條修正案將被解讀為賦予幾乎任何在美國領土出生的人美國公民身份（即屬地主義原則）。而法院對此持不同意見的兩位法官則認為「並受其管轄」應該是從政治上效忠於美國，即根據血統主義（即屬人主義）原則，新生兒的國籍將根據其父母的國籍來認定[2]。

研究人員在2007年的一篇對黃金德案後相關判決的法律分析文章中認為，以屬地主義原則賦予公民權的概念「從來沒有被最高法院嚴肅地質疑過，並且也由下級法院作為教條所接受」[3]:80。2010年的一篇針對公民權條款歷史的評論文章指出，黃金德案判決使公民權條款「適用於在美國領土上出生的外國人士後代」，並指出最高法院「自『非法移民』一詞出現以來還從未重新審視過這一判決」[4]:332。

不過自1990年代起，長期存在的非法移民後代也能自動獲得公民權這一做法隨着流入美國移民數量的大量增加而引起了不少爭議。法律學者表示不認同將黃金德案的判決先例應用到非法移民後代身上。國會曾先後幾次試圖對屬地主義原則作出限制，或是通過法案來重新定義「管轄」一詞，又或試圖通過一條憲法修正案來推翻判決，但這些努力都沒有成功。

背景

[編輯]

早期的美國公民權法律

[編輯]
參見：美國公民出生地原則

美國公民權相關法律是以兩個傳統原則建立的：一個是「屬地主義」原則，也稱「普通法主義」原則；另一個是「血統主義」原則，亦稱「國際公法」原則或是「國際主義」原則。根據屬地主義原則或英國的普通法，一位新生兒的國籍將按其出生地來判斷，無須考慮新生兒政治上是否向該國效忠或是其父母的相應情況。而在血統主義原則或國際公法原則下，新生兒的國籍將與其父母（主要是與父親，除非是未婚生育才會與母親）保持一致，不考慮出生地[5]:536[6]。

縱觀美國歷史，雖然直至內戰結束後才有對公民權作出明確定義的法律[7]，但以屬地主義原則判斷公民身份一直是佔有主導地位的法律原則，而且此做法已經得到普遍接受[8][9]，故所有在美國領土出生的新生兒都將自動獲得公民權。唯一例外則是在內戰前奴隸遭排除在外，因為他們被認為是奴隸主的財產，因而不能成為美國公民[10][11][12]。1844年紐約州有過一個以屬地主義原則判定公民權的典型案例林奇訴克拉克案（Lynch v. Clarke），案中一對外國夫婦僑居在紐約市時生下了一名女嬰，這個女嬰就由法官根據屬地主義原則判定是一位美國公民[13]。

美國公民權同樣也可以通過血統主義原則獲得，國會曾通過《1790年入籍法（英語：Naturalization Act of 1790）》確認了這一原則，主要是為了讓身在國外美國公民的孩子也可以自動擁有公民權[14]。此外，移民美國的外國人也可以通過歸化程序成為美國公民，這一過程起初只限定對「自由的白人」開放，但之後已經廢除了限制[14]。

來自非洲的黑奴曾被長期排除在美國公民以外。1857年，聯邦最高法院對斯科特訴桑福德案作出判決[15]，認為根據憲法，所有奴隸或之前曾是奴隸的人以及他們的後代都不能成為美國公民[16]。此外，由於印第安人部落和該保留地一度不屬於聯邦政府的管轄範圍，因此美洲原住民起初亦不獲納入美國公民之列。

第十四條修正案公民權條款

[編輯]
主條目：美利堅合眾國憲法第十四條修正案

內戰結束後，奴隸制被全面廢除，國會頒佈了《1866年民權法案（英語：Civil Rights Act of 1866）》[17][18]。其中明確規定包括獲得解放的奴隸在內，「除了未被徵稅的印第安人以外，所有在美國出生且非任何外國勢力的人」都是美國公民[19]。

由於擔心《1866年民權法案》中保證的公民權遭將來的國會立法廢除[20]，或是被法院判定違憲[21][22]，法案通過後國會馬上就起草了美利堅合眾國憲法第十四條修正案並遞交各州批准（整個過程都在1868年完成）[23]。第十四條修正案中的許多規定確立了對公民身份的憲法保證：「所有在合眾國出生或歸化合眾國並受其管轄的人，都是合眾國的和他們居住州的公民」[24][25][26]。這一公民權條款由來自密芝根州的聯邦參議員雅各布·M·霍華德（英語：Jacob M. Howard）於1866年5月30日提出，是對眾議院聯席決議起草的第十四條修正案初稿的一個補充[27]。參議院對霍華德的提議展開了激烈的辯論，辯論主要集中在其譴辭用句上是否會比《1866年民權法案》產生更廣泛的影響[28]。霍華德表示這一條款「只是簡單地將我看來已經成為法律的內容作一次宣示，那就是根據自然法和國家法律，所有在合眾國出生或歸化合眾國並受其管轄的人，都是合眾國的公民」[27]。他也補充認為公民權的賦予「當然不包括那些外交官或是受聯邦政府認可的他國官員及其家人，但是應該包括所有其他層次的人。」這一補充之後將引發國會是否一開始就打算將他國人士在美國出生的後代認定為美國公民的爭議。來自賓夕凡尼亞州的埃德加·科萬（英語：Edgar Cowan）對此表示擔憂，認為放寬公民權標準可能會導致一些州湧入大量不良外來移民[29]；不過來自加利福尼亞州的約翰·康納斯（英語：John Conness）則預料該州的華人總數將保持在一個很低的數字，這很大程度上是由於華人移民幾乎最終總是會返回中國，而這則是因為很少會有中國的女性離開故土來到美國[30]。

威斯康星州的詹姆斯·羅德·杜利特（英語：James Rood Doolittle）對條款表示反對，認為放寬這一限制將導致印第安人獲得公民權[31]，為了解決這個問題，他提議在公民權條款中增加一句民權法案的已有內容：「不包括未被徵稅的印第安人」[27]。雖然大部分參議員都同意不應該賦予印第安人公民權，但其中的大部分也認為並不必要將這個問題澄清[32]，因此杜利特的提議經投票被否決[33]。修正案回到眾議院時沒有再引起多少辯論，也沒有人對參議院增加的公民權條款表示反對，修正案於1866年6月13日在眾議院投票通過[34]，並在1868年7月28日正式宣佈通過[35]。

2006年在加州大學柏克萊分校法學院擔任助理教授，並在之後成為加利福尼亞州最高法院大法官的劉弘威在文章中寫道，雖然公民權條款的立法歷史有些「稍嫌單薄」，但其在內戰後時期歷史背景下的核心作用卻是顯而易見的[36]。一個名為憲法問責中心（英語：Constitutional Accountability Center）的進步主義智庫首席法律顧問伊利沙伯·威德拉（Elizabeth Wydra）[37]認為，1866年公民權條款的支持和反對者們都認同這一條款將自動賦予所有在美國出生的人公民身份（除了外交官或入侵軍隊的子女）[38]。德克薩斯州副檢察長詹姆斯·C·胡（James C. Ho）對此也有同樣的看法[39]。艾克朗大學法學院院長理查德·艾納斯（Richard Aynes）則表示了不同看法，他認為公民權條款產生了「其制定者始料未及的效果」[40]。

美國華人的公民權

[編輯]

與其他許多國家的移民一樣，華人也被吸引來了美國，起初主要是因為1849年的加利福尼亞淘金潮，然後則是參與修建鐵路、務農及在城市中找工作[41]:56。1868年中美兩國簽訂《中美天津條約續增條約》（又名《蒲安臣條約》），大幅擴大了中美間貿易和移民的規模[42]。但條約中並沒有涉及兩國公民在對方領土上出生子女的公民權問題[43]。而對於歸化（除出生外另一個獲得公民權的途徑）方面，條約中包括的一條規定則是：「本條約中所包含的任何內容，不得用作歸化……在美國的中國人士」[44][45]。

很大程度上由於其完全不同文化習慣和價值觀的影響，華人移民初到美國時面對的是相當普遍的不信任、不滿和歧視。許多政治家認為華人實在是在太多方面存在如此巨大差異，以致於不但不會，更是不可能融入到美國的文化之中，並且還會對這個國家的原則和體制構成威脅[41]:57。在這種反華情緒的環境下，國會於1882年制定了《排華法案》，對來自中國的移民作出限制[46]。這一法案之後還經過了數次修改[47]，如1888年的《斯科特法案（英語：Scott Act (1888)）》[48]和1892年的《格爾瑞法案（英語：Geary Act）》[49]，這些都曾統稱為《排華法案》。已經進入美國的華人可以繼續生活，但他們沒有資格入籍，並且當他們離開美國之後再回來時，需重新申請並獲得批准。法案中還特別禁止了華人勞工和礦工進入或返回美國[50]:46[51]。

法院與公民權條款

[編輯]

在第十四條修正案通過後，黃金德案出現之前，外國人士孩童出生地公民權的問題專指華人和土著印第安人[52][53]。聯邦最高法院曾在1884年的艾爾克訴威爾金斯案（英語：Elk v. Wilkins）中裁決於保留地出生的印第安人不屬於聯邦政府管轄範圍，因此不能夠獲得美國公民身份，亦不可因為之後只是離開保留地並放棄向之前的部落效忠就能成為美國公民[54][55]。

華人移民在美國出生的後代是否適用公民權條款的問題首先是在1884年的「陸天申案」（In re Look Tin Sing）中提出的[56]。陸天申[57]於1870年在加利福尼亞州蒙多西諾（英語：Mendocino, California）出生，1884年他去了一趟中國，但回美國時由於不能提供當時所規定中國移民就有的足夠證明文件，他被禁止入境。這個案件在加利福尼亞州的聯邦巡迴法院（英語：United States Circuit Court）開庭，聯邦最高法院大法官史蒂芬·約翰遜·菲爾德（英語：Stephen Johnson Field）和另外兩位聯邦法官審理[56]。據新罕布什爾大學歷史教授露西·薩爾耶（Lucy Salyer）[58]書中所寫，大法官菲爾德「向該地區所有的律師發出公開邀請，請他們就（這一案件）涉及的憲法問題發表意見」[41]:60。菲爾德關注於公民權條款中「並受其管轄」這一短語的含義，認為陸天申出生時，他的父母雖然是外國人士，但他仍然「受美國管轄」，因此大法官命令美國官員視陸天申為美國公民並允許他入境[59]。陸天申案之後並沒有上訴，並且也從未被最高法院審查。1892年的另一個案件中，加利福尼亞州同一個巡迴區的聯邦上訴法院（即之後的第九巡迴上訴法院）總結認為只要一個華人可以提供足夠的證據證實他是在美國境內出生的，那麼就應視其為美國公民[60]。這一案件同樣沒有上訴到最高法院。

1873年，聯邦最高法院在屠宰場案（英語：Slaughter-House Cases）的判決中[61]有這樣的一句表述：「『並受其管轄』旨在排除外國領事、官員和公民在美國出生的後代」[62]。不過因為該案並未涉及出生公民權的問題，所以之後法院沒有考慮這一表述，並視之為一個沒有任何案件先例約束力的附加說明[63][64]。

對黃金德公民權的挑戰

[編輯]
參見：黃金德
美國移民局於1904年拍下的黃金德照片
黃金德的簽名

黃金德（Wong Kim Ark[65]）出生於三藩市，各種來源表明他有可能是出生於1873年[66]、1871年[67][68]或1868年[69][70]。他的父親黃四平（Wong Si Ping，音譯）和母親李薇（Wee Lee，音譯）都是來自中國的移民，而二人皆非美國公民[3]:74[50]:51。黃金德在三藩市做廚師[71]。

1890年，黃金德到中國探親，並於同年7月回美國，這一次他的美國身份沒有受到質疑，所以一路平安無事。1894年11月，他再次搭船臨時前往中國，但到了次年8月回國時，他被三藩市港的移民局人員拒絕入境並予以拘留。移民局人員認為黃金德雖然出生在美國境內，但由於他的父母都是中國人，所以他也應該是中國而非美國公民[72]。

根據薩爾耶的說法，三藩市市檢察官喬治·科林斯（George Collins）曾試圖說服聯邦司法部將一個華人出生公民權的案子上訴到聯邦最高法院。他曾在1895年5至6月的《美國法律評論》上發表文章，批評之前陸潤卿案的判決以及聯邦政府對挑戰這一判決駐足不前。並主張以國際法的觀點來解讀公民權的血統主義原則[73]。最終他成功說服了「努力尋找一個可行案件並選中了黃金德案的」聯邦司法部長亨瑞·富特（Henry Foote）[41]:66。

1894年黃金德的宣誓證詞

在中華公所法律代表的幫助下[41]:67，黃金德對拒絕承認他生來就是美國公民的人提出挑戰，並向美國聯邦地區法院發起人身保護令的呈請[74][75]。地區法院法官威廉·W·莫羅（英語：William W. Morrow）聽取了雙方的辯論[50]:52，這場庭辯主要圍繞公民權條款中「並受其管轄」（subject to the jurisdiction thereof'）五字解讀以及外來人士在美國所生孩子是否屬於美國公民的問題展開[76]。黃金德的律師認為其含義是「受到合眾國法律的管轄」，在這樣的理解下，他國公民進入美國後就應遵守其法律。這一解讀也與美國從英國所繼承的普通法思想相符，並且將確保所有在美國出生的人都會根據出生地原則而成為美國公民。聯邦政府則聲稱「並受其管轄」的意思是「從政治上受合眾國的管轄」。這樣的解讀則是來自於國際法，是根據一個孩子的父母來判斷其國籍，即「血統主義」原則。根據這樣的解讀，由於黃金德的父母都不是美國公民，因此他也不是[77][78]。

在這以前，聯邦最高法院還從未審理過有關外國人在美國生下的後代是否是美國公民的案件[63][79]。聯邦政府認為黃金德所要求的美國公民權已經被最高法院在1873年的屠宰場案（英語：Slaughter-House Cases）中排除[80][62]，但地區法院法官認為該案例並不直接與本案有關，因此只有少許的參考價值[63][81]，政府又提到了艾爾克訴威爾金斯案中的類似結論，但法官仍然認為缺乏足夠的說服力[82][83]。

黃金德的律師援引陸天申案（In re Look Tin Sing，音譯[57]）中地區法院法官的意見，在最高法院沒有指定一個明確方向的情況下，這一案件將對解決所有第九巡迴區與黃金德情況類似人士的公民權問題起到決定性作用[84][85]。法官注意到陸天申案的判決在之後也得到了聯邦上訴法院另一案件的重申，還參考了最高法院在屠宰場案判決中「只要（一個人）在美國出生或是歸化，那麼他就是美國的公民」這一表述[86]。他得出結論認為陸天申案判決是第九巡迴區的一個有效先例。莫羅法官裁定「並受其管轄」意味着受美國法律的管轄。1896年1月3日[87][88]，法官宣佈黃金德是一位美國公民，原因為他在美國出生[89][90]。

聯邦政府敗訴後直接向最高法院提出了上訴[91][92]。據薩爾耶的說法，政府官員意識到這一案件的判決「不僅是對華裔，而且對所有在美國出生但父母是別國人士的人皆非常重要」，同時也擔心如果按常規途徑上訴至最高法院，那麼同年11月的1896年美國總統選舉將會對最高法院的判決產生影響。所以為了避免法院基於對政策的擔憂而非根據案件本身來進行審理，政府選擇了越過上訴法院[41]:69。1897年3月5日，雙方在最高法院展開了口頭辯論[93]。代表政府一方的是聯邦訟務次長霍爾姆斯·康拉德（英語：Holmes Conrad）[94]，而代表黃金德出庭的律師則是麥克斯維爾·埃瓦茨（英語：Maxwell Evarts），前助理聯邦司法部長J·哈伯利·阿什頓（J. Hubley Ashton）[95]和托馬斯·D·里爾丹（Thomas D. Riordan）[96]。

最高法院認為，這一案件的關鍵問題在於「一個在美國出生的孩子父母具有中國血統，出生時兩人雖然在美國有固定住所但仍然是中國皇帝的子民，他們不是任何外交官或中國皇帝的官員下屬，而是來此經商，那麼這個孩子是否可以根據第十四條修正案獲得公民權[3]:74。」如果黃金德是美國公民，那麼「國會通過旨在禁止華人，特別是華人勞工進入美國的《排華法案》將對他不適用」[97]。

法庭意見

[編輯]
聯邦最高法院大法官霍里斯·格雷（英語：Horace Gray）撰寫了黃金德案的法院意見

最高法院以六比二的投票結果[98][99]裁定黃金德一出生便擁有美國公民身份，而「黃金德與生俱來的美國公民權並沒有因為任何原因失去或被剝奪」[100]，並於1898年3月28日正式宣佈[101]。判決書由大法官霍里斯·格雷（英語：Horace Gray）起草，另外5位大法官大衛·喬什亞·布魯爾（英語：David Josiah Brewer）、亨瑞·比林斯·布朗（英語：Henry Billings Brown）、小喬治·席拉斯（英語：George Shiras, Jr.）、愛德華·道格拉斯·懷特和魯弗斯·威勒·派克漢姆（英語：Rufus Wheeler Peckham）聯名[102]。

法院在判決中認為公民權條款應該根據英國普通法的角度來解讀[103]，即堅持屬地主義原則[104]。普通法所認定的英籍人士即包括了幾乎所有出生在其領土範圍內的兒童，僅有的例外只是外國統治者或外交官的後代、在外國公共船隻上出生的後代或敵對交戰勢力所佔領土上出生的後代[105][3]:74-76。「根據普通法，認定英國國籍的基本原則就是屬地主義原則，在英國出生的孩童，包括友好的外國人，都將被視為是天生的英國公民。這一原則唯一的例外只是外交官或是敵對勢力的後代……第十四條修正案以清晰的表述規定了每一位在其管轄屬地出生的嬰兒，無論種族或膚色，只要不涉及屬地主義原則的例外即是美國公民」[106]。法院的多數意見認為公民權條款中的「並受其管轄」五字只排除了普通法中所提及的三類以及「未被徵稅的印第安人」[54][107]。多數意見總結認為黃金德並不適用於這全部4種例外情況，也沒有任何證據可以證實他在美國生活和工作以及前往中國的過程中有關聯到任何外交事務[72]。

判決書中援引1812年帆船交易所訴法登案（英語：The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon）中首席大法官約翰·馬歇爾的意見：「國家對其領土的管轄權必定是專屬且絕對的」[108][109][110]，支持了最初審理此案的地區法院法官有關「屠宰場案」中非公民父母後代公民權的判決並不構成本案具有約束性先例的意見[64]。法院認為黃金德與生俱來的公民權受第十四條修正案保護，《排華法案》中的限制對其不適用[111]。他們認為一項國會的立法不能凌駕於憲法之上，這樣的法律「不能左右（憲法的）含義或是削弱其效果，而必須服從規定並予以解釋及執行」[112][113]。1898年法院的裁決公佈後不久，三藩市市檢察官馬歇爾·B·伍德沃斯（Marshall B. Woodworth）[114][115]評價道，對判決「持異議者顯然沒有意識到合眾國作為一個主權實體，有權通過任何其認為適當的公民權法律，國際法中的相關規則並不能將美國公民認定原則限制在其單獨的範圍內」[116]:561。

不同意見

[編輯]
首席大法官梅爾維爾·富勒撰寫了黃金德案的不同意見

首席大法官梅爾維爾·富勒撰寫了案件的不同意見，大法官約翰·馬歇爾·哈倫聯名。不同意見認為「在大多數情況下，應該要承認國際法原則的前提」[116]:560-561。他們認為美國公民權法律早在獨立戰爭勝利後就已經與英國普通法決裂，美國人放棄了英國國籍，拒絕再向大英帝國永久效忠[117][118]。不同意見認為以血統主義原則根據新生兒的父親判斷其國籍的做法在美國獨立後的法律史上更為普遍[119]。他們還根據美國與中國訂立的條約以及入籍法的規定認為，「除非第十四條修正案推翻了這些條約和入籍法，華人在國內生下的孩童並不能從事實上成為美國公民」[3]:77[120][121]。

國會曾在提出第十四條修正案兩個月前通過了《1866年民權法案（英語：Civil Rights Act of 1866）》，其中有「除了未被徵稅的印第安人以外，所有在美國出生且非任何外國勢力的人」都是美國公民的表述。持不同意見的兩位法官據此認為公民權條款中「並受其管轄」應該也是成為美國公民的必要條件[122][123]。在其看來，過度依賴屬地主義原則作為判斷公民身份的決定性因素是站不住腳的，「外國人僅僅是經過我國時所生下的孩子，無論其是否有皇族血統，又無論他們是蒙古、馬來或其他種族都有資格去競選總統，而我們自己公民在海外所生的孩子卻反而沒有」[2]。

兩位法官還承認其他外國人的後代，包括以前的奴隸都在多年來通過屬地主義原則獲得了公民權，然而他們認為華人的情況仍然有所不同。因為華人巨大的文化傳統差異使他們無法融入美國主流社會[120]。當年中國的法律還規定放棄向皇帝效忠將是死罪[124]，而《排華法案》也令已經居留在美國的華人沒有資格再尋求公民身份[125]，所以對於兩位法官來說真正的問題「並不是黃金德是否在美國出生或受其管轄……而是他的父母是否能夠根據美國或別國的法案、法規和條約成為美國公民」[3]:79。

在判決公佈前不久，大法官哈倫在對一組法律專業學生主持的講座中表示，華人曾長期地被排除在美國社會以外，「這是一個我們完全一無所知，並且永遠都不會相互融入的種族」。他還認為如果沒有排華法案，大量的華人將在美國西部紮根。不過他也承認法庭的多數意見認為在美出生華人應該獲得公民權，表示「當然，另一方的說法是憲法中對這種情況的出現坦然處之」[126]。

後續發展

[編輯]

當代反應

[編輯]

判決於1898年3月28日公佈後不久，三藩市市檢查官馬歇爾·B·伍德沃斯在其分析文章中指出了對公民權條款管轄權的兩種互不相讓的理論，並總結指出「由於事實上法院對此案的裁決並非一致決定，因此這個議題至少是值得辯論的」[116]:556。不過他也認為最高法院的判決已經讓這一爭議告一段落，表示「很難看到會再有什麼有效的反對意見提出來」[116]:561。發表在《耶魯法律期刊》上的另一篇案件分析文章則支持了法院判決中的反對意見[117]。

1898年3月30日《三藩市紀事報》發表社論，表達了對兩天前作出的黃金德案判決「可能對公民權問題產生更為廣泛影響」的擔憂，特別是這一判決可能不僅會讓華人擁有公民權和投票權，日裔和美洲原住民也會擁有一樣的權利。社論中建議「或者有必要……修改憲法來規定公民權只能賦予白人和黑人」[127]。

對黃金德家庭的影響

[編輯]
黃金德幾個兒子的簽名
黃金德的4個兒子在各種美國出入境證件上的簽名：黃毓煥、黃郁賜、黃沃修和黃沃沾

由於黃金德的美國公民身份得到了聯邦最高法院的確認，他的長子於1910年從中國來到了美國，希望能夠根據血統主義原則成為美國公民[67]。但美國移民局官員聲稱這與其在移民聽證會上的證詞不符，因而拒絕接受黃金德有關這個男孩是他兒子的說法[128]。黃金德的另外3個兒子於1924至1926年間先後來到美國，並且都成功成為了美國公民[69][129][130]。

黃金德案後的公民權法律

[編輯]

美國目前的法律規定，出生時自動獲得公民權的途徑有兩種，一種是屬地主義原則規定的在美國領地出生，另一種則是血統主義原則確立的從父母血緣關係上確立[6]。在黃金德案以前，聯邦最高法院曾在艾爾克訴威爾金斯案中判決出生地原則不足以賦予美洲原住民美國公民權[131]，但是，國會還是通過《1924年印第安人公民法（英語：Indian Citizenship Act of 1924）》將公民權賦予了印第安人[132][133][134]。

一開始為限制華人移民歸化而制訂的《排華法案》最終被《1943年美國廢除排華法》[135]和《1965年移民和國籍法案（英語：Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965）》[136][50]:63[137]取代。

黃金德案與之後的案件

[編輯]

自黃金德案判決多年後，以屬地主義原則賦予公民權的概念「從來沒有被最高法院嚴肅地質疑過，並且也由下級法院作為教條所接受」。自該案後，涉及公民權問題的案件主要都是考慮公民權條款中沒有確立的情況[3]:80。如生活在國外美國公民後代的血統主義原則問題[138]或失去美國公民權的特殊情況[139]。

黃金德案確立的以屬地主義原則作為確定美國公民身份首要規則的判決也已在多個有關美國出生的中國或日本血統後代公民權案件中得到援引[139][140][141][142]。而法院判決中認為憲法應該以英國普通法視角解讀的意見也被多個涉及解讀憲法或國會通過法案的最高法院案件所援引[143][144][145]。1982年的一個涉及非法移民權利的案件中也引用了法院在黃金德案中對第十四條修正案的解讀[146]。

1942年的里根訴金案（Regan v. King）對2600名在美國出生日裔人士的公民權提出了挑戰。原告律師稱黃金德案是最高法院所做出過「最具傷害力也是最不幸的判決之一」，並稱希望這個新的案件可以給法院「一個糾正自己的機會」[147]。聯邦地區法院[148][149]和第九巡迴上訴法院[150]都斷然拒絕了這種論調，並援引黃金德案為一個有效的法律先例，最高法院也拒絕了這個案件的調卷令[151]。

黃金德案的判決還引來了一些美國佔領或部分佔領菲律賓期間（1898至1902年）在其佔領地出生的人要求美國公民權，聯邦上訴法院已經多次拒絕接受通過援引黃金德案來認同這些要求[152][153]。其中一個聯邦上訴法院的裁決中還批評了黃金德案將屬地主義原則與非法移民聯繫起來，不過與此同時法院也承認無法改變這一規則，因此敦促國會採取行動[154]。

黃金德案與非法移民的後代

[編輯]

從1990年代起，根據屬地主義原則是否應該將美國公民身份自動賦予非法移民後代的問題開始出現[155][156]，一些媒體記者和遊說團體對這些問題提出了爭議[157]。公眾對其的辯論也引起了對黃金德案判決的重新審視[158]。

一些法律學者認為屬地主義原則不適用於非法移民，黃金德案的先例也不適用於父母以非法方式居留在美國境內的情況。前查普曼大學法學院（英語：Chapman University School of Law）院長約翰·C·伊斯斯曼（英語：John C. Eastman）認為黃金德案並不能令非法移民後代自動獲得公民權，因為在他看來，「受合眾國管轄」要求全面和徹底的司法管轄，因此不適用於非法滯留的外國人[159]。他還進一步認為黃金德案判決在處理管轄權這一概念時有根本性的缺陷[160]，判決後國會通過的《1924年印第安公民法（英語：Indian Citizenship Act of 1924）》說明，如果國會也認為「公民權條款會賦予那些意外出生者公民權」，那麼這一條法律根本就沒有必要進行制訂[161]。彼得·H·施努克和羅傑·M·史密斯（英語：Rogers M. Smith）對管轄權方面也有類似的看法[162]。據德克薩斯州大學柯士甸分校法學教授萊諾·格拉格里亞（英語：Lino Graglia）所說，即使黃金德案解決了合法居民後代的（公民權）問題，但對那些非法居民仍然不適用[163]。美國聯邦最七巡迴上訴法院法官理查德·A·波斯納也批評了將公民權賦予非法移民後代的做法，建議國會可以並且也應該採取行動來改變這一政策[154]。美國聯邦參議院司法委員會（英語：United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary）移民問題小組前法律顧問查爾斯·伍德（Charles Wood）也反對這種做法，並曾在1999年呼籲儘可能快通過國會法案或是憲法修正案停止其繼續執行[164]。

不過，巴爾的摩大學法學教授加瑞特·艾普斯（英語：Garrett Epps）對這樣的觀點表示反對。他認為「在『美國訴黃金德案』中，聯邦最高法院認為這種（出生公民權的）保證適用於所有外國人在美國領土上出生的後代，即使其父母不是美國公民並且也不符合成為美國公民的標準也不例外」[4]:332。他還進一步指出，「從實際來看，在美國出生的孩童不論其父母移民狀態都可以成為美國公民」[4]:333。在艾普斯看來，第十四條修正案的制訂者們「會毫不動搖地堅持公民權條款應該涵蓋」那些不受歡迎移民和吉普賽人的後代，因此他認為黃金德案的判決在理解制憲意圖上是「無懈可擊」的[4]:381。

紐約大學法學院教授克麗斯蒂娜·羅德里格茲（Cristina Rodriguez）認為，黃金德當年的處境在「每一個有意義的方面都與」非法移民的後代相似，因為「他們都涉及移民父母還不符合政策中要成為公民的要求」。羅德里格茲聲稱黃金德案的判決是「對那些認為一個人的身份取決於其父母身份想法的強大反擊」[165]:1367。針對史密斯和施努克的反對意見，羅德里格茲還說：「從所有實際目的上來看，這場辯論早就已經有了結論。雖然在過去幾年中對移民政策的改革有了一些新的關注，並試圖促使國會通過立法拒絕未經授權兒童的公民權。但是並沒有人對此採取行動，這很大程度上是因為人們普遍認為最高法院會宣佈這樣的法律違憲」[165]:1363-1364。

詹姆斯·胡也表示了與羅德里格茲類似的看法，表示「第十四條修正案保證了出生公民權。這樣的保護並不會因為孩子父母是坐『五月花號』進入或是非法進入就有任何區別[166]。」他還認為那些聲稱公民權條款並沒有意圖要賦予外國人後代公民權的人都無視了1866年參議院針對在第十四條修正案中加上這一條款提議所進行的辯論[167]。

1982年，最高法院審理了普萊勒訴杜伊案（英語：Plyler v. Doe）[168]，案件涉及在國外出生的孩子與父母一起非法進入美國後要求公民權的問題。法院認為第十四條修正案的管轄權同樣適用於非法移民及其後代[169][170]。一項德克薩斯州州法曾試圖拒絕非法移民的後代進入公立學校就讀，州政府聲稱「非法進入美國的人即使居留在某州範圍內且服從其法律也不屬該州『管轄範圍』」[146]。最高法院對此以5比4作出的裁決指出，根據黃金德案，第十四條修正案中「並受其管轄」和「管轄範圍內」實質上是同樣的意思；兩種表達都主要是指物理存在而非政治忠誠[104]，因此黃金德案判決同樣令非法移民的後代受益[169]。法院裁決認定，第十四條修正案的管轄權與一個人是否是以合法方式進入美國無關[146][171]。

雖然持不同意見的另外4位大法官不認同多數意見中有關這類兒童是否有權進入公立學校就讀的問題，但他們仍然同意第十四條修正案管轄權適用於非法移民[172]。詹姆斯·胡認為這一個案件應該可以讓那些對這一系列問題的疑慮和爭論「平息下來」了[173]。

美國國務院（聯邦政府中負責國際關係的部門，行使其他國家外交部的權力）認為在美國出生的非法移民後代受到美國的管轄，因而其一出生就擁有公民權。《美國國務院外交事務手冊（英語：U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual）》所持立場認為這一問題已經由黃金德案判決所解決[155]。

根據露西·塞爾耶的說法，「黃金德案（確立）的出生公民權原則在一個多世紀的時間內仍然完好無損，在美國的原則和實踐中仍然被基本認為是一個自然而完善的規則，已經不大可能會被徹底改變[41]:79。」

試圖推翻黃金德案判決的立法

[編輯]

為了響應公眾打擊非法移民的要求[104]，同時也擔心非法移民的後代成為美國公民後，其相應本沒有資格繼續停留在國內的親屬也全部都成為「連鎖移民」，國會曾數次提出法案試圖挑戰對公民權條款的常規解讀，並尋求辦法積極和明確地拒絕給予外國遊客或非法居留人士在美國所生後代的公民權，但都沒有成功[174]。2009年，來自佐治亞州的聯邦眾議員內森·迪爾在第111屆國會上提出了《2009年出生公民權法》（Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009），這一法案就是旨在排除非法移民在美國所生子女對公民權條款的適用性[175]；2011年1月5日，愛荷華州眾議員史蒂夫·金又在第112屆提出了與之類似的《2011年出生公民權法》（Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011）[176]；2011年4月5日，來自路易斯安納州的聯邦參議員大衛·韋特也在參議院提出了類似的法案「S. 723」[177]；不過截止2011年12月，《2011年出生公民權法》還沒有進入眾議院或參議院的議程。

由於有黃金德案的先例，所有國會通過的任何試圖改變公民權條款解讀的法案都很可能會被法院判決違憲[165]:1363-1364。因此也有人考慮通過憲法修正案來改寫第十四條修正案中的字句，從而達到拒絕給予非法移民後代美國公民身份的目標。比如上面提到的路易斯安納州參議員韋特就曾在第111屆國會上提出了一個類似的聯合決議案，但與幾位眾議員提交的法案一樣，這一議案也沒能在2010年12月22日國會休會前進入兩院議程[178]。韋特又在2011年1月25日重新提出了這一個修正案提案，截止2011年12月，這一提案仍然沒有能進入兩院的議程[179]。

2010和2011年，亞歷桑那州的州議員提出法案拒絕向父母無法證明自己是合法居留在美國境內人士的子女發放出生證明書。據報道，這類法案的支持者們希望可以令一個非法居留外國人所生子女出生公民權的案件到達聯邦最高法院，進而有希望可以限制甚至推翻黃金德案的判決[180][181][182]。

參見

[編輯]

引用

[編輯]
  1. ^ 美国宪法精解. 中國政法大學出版社. 2016-12-01: 12. ISBN 9787562070795. 
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 169） U.S. 649, 715 (1898).
  3. ^ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Glen, Patrick J. Wong Kim Ark and Sentencia que Declara Constitucional la Ley General de Migración 285-04 in Comparative Perspective: Constitutional Interpretation, Jus Soli Principles, and Political Morality. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. Fall 2007, 39 (1): 67–109. JSTOR 40176768. 
  4. ^ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Epps, Garrett. The Citizenship Clause: A 'Legislative History' (pdf). American University Law Review. 2010, 60 (2): 329–388 [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於2013-01-12）. 
  5. ^ Woodworth, Marshall B. Citizenship of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. American Law Review (St. Louis: Review Pub. Company). 1896, 30: 535–555. 
  6. ^ 6.0 6.1 "Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States", 7 FAM 1111(a).
  7. ^ 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."
  8. ^ 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."
  9. ^ "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."
  10. ^ 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."
  11. ^ Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General. Legislation denying citizenship at birth to certain children born in the United States. Memoranda and Opinions. Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice. 1995-12-13 [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於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. 
  12. ^ Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236 (N.Y. 1844).
  13. ^ 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."
  14. ^ 14.0 14.1 An Act to establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization 1st Cong., Sess. II, Chap. 3; 1 Stat. 103. 1790-3-26. The Library of Congress. [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於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.... 
  15. ^ Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 60） U.S. 393 (1857).
  16. ^ Schwarz, Frederic D. The Dred Scott Decision. American Heritage (Rockville, MD: American Heritage Publishing). 2007-02-03, 58 (1) [2012-06-14]. （原始內容存檔於2012-06-14）. 
  17. ^ An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication. Milestone Documents. 39th Cong., Sess. I, Chap. 31; 14 Stat. 27. April 9, 1866. [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於2013-12-03）. 
  18. ^ "Authorities", 7 FAM 1119(e). "This rule was made part of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Statutes at Large 27)...."
  19. ^ Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Online Library of Liberty. [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於2013-05-20）. 
  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...."
  21. ^ Epps, Garrett. Democracy Reborn: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Fight for Equal Rights in Post-Civil War America. 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. 
  22. ^ The Congressional Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 597. 1866-02-02 [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於2021-04-12）. Congress has no power to make a citizen.... [only] to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. 
  23. ^ Law Library of Congress: Fourteenth Amendment and Citizenship. Library of Congress. [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於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. 
  24. ^ 任東來; 陳偉; 白雪峰; Charles J. McClain; Laurene Wu McClain. 美国宪政历程：影响美国的25个司法大案. 中國法制出版社. 2004年1月: 574. ISBN 7-80182-138-6. 
  25. ^ 李道揆. 美国政府和政治（下册）. 商務印書館. 1999: 775–799. 
  26. ^ Stimson, Frederic Jesup. The Law of the Federal and State Constitutions of the United States. Clark, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange. 2004: 76 [2013-05-13]. ISBN 978-1-58477-369-6. （原始內容存檔於2020-11-02）. 
  27. ^ 27.0 27.1 27.2 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2890 （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） (1866-5-30).
  28. ^ Law Library of Congress: Fourteenth Amendment and Citizenship. Library of Congress. [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於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. 
  29. ^ 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.'"
  30. ^ Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2891 (1866-5-30).
  31. ^ 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."
  32. ^ 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."
  33. ^ Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2897 (1866-5-30).
  34. ^ Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 3149 （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） (1866-6-13).
  35. ^ Proclamation by William H. Seward, Secretary of State. The Library of Congress. 1868-07-28 [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於2021-03-08）. 
  36. ^ Liu, Goodwin. Education, Equality, and National Citizenship (PDF). Yale Law Journal. 2006, 116: 349 [2013-12-09]. （原始內容 (PDF)存檔於2011-07-06）. 
  37. ^ Elizabeth B. Wydra. Huffington Post. [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於2013-03-27）. 
  38. ^ Wydra, Elizabeth. Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional Guarantee (PDF). American Constitution Society for Law and Policy: 6. 2009 [2013-12-09]. （原始內容 (PDF)存檔於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. 
  39. ^ 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."
  40. ^ Aynes, Richard L. Unintended consequences of the Fourteenth Amendment and what they tell us about its interpretation. Akron Law Review. 2006, 39: 289 [2013-12-09]. [永久失效連結]
  41. ^ 41.0 41.1 41.2 41.3 41.4 41.5 41.6 Salyer, Lucy E. Wong Kim Ark: The Contest Over Birthright Citizenship. Martin, David; Schuck, Peter (編). Immigration Stories. New York: Foundation Press. 2005. ISBN 1-58778-873-X. 
  42. ^ Burlingame Treaty （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）, 16 Stat. 739. 1868-7-28.
  43. ^ English and Chinese Text of the Burlingame Treaty 1868. [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於2021-02-24）. 
  44. ^ Meyler, Bernadette. The Gestation of Birthright Citizenship, 1868–1898 States' Rights, the Law of Nations, and Mutual Consent. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal. Spring 2001, 15: 521–525. 
  45. ^ Aarim-Heriot, Najia. Chinese Immigrants, African Americans, and Racial Anxiety in the United States, 1848–82. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. 2003: 108–112. ISBN 0-252-02775-2. 
  46. ^ An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese. （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） 47th Cong., Sess. I, Chap. 126; 22 Stat. 58. 1882-5-6.
  47. ^ Dake, B. Frank. The Chinaman before the Supreme Court. Albany Law Journal. 1905-9, 67 (9): 259–260. 
  48. ^ 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.
  49. ^ 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.
  50. ^ 50.0 50.1 50.2 50.3 Elinson, Elaine; Yogi, Stan. Wherever There's a Fight: How Runaway Slaves, Suffragists, Immigrants, Strikers and Poets Shaped Civil Liberties in California. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books. 2009. ISBN 978-1-59714-114-7. 
  51. ^ Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). Our Documents. [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於2013-10-29）. 
  52. ^ 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."
  53. ^ "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)."
  54. ^ 54.0 54.1 Elk v. Wilkins, 112（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 112） U.S. 94 (1884).
  55. ^ Urofsky, Melvin I.; Finkelman, Paul. A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States 1 2nd. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2002 [2013-09-04]. ISBN 0-19-512635-1. 
  56. ^ 56.0 56.1 In re Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (D.Cal. 1884). Thayer, James Bradley. Cases on constitutional law, with notes (Part 2). Charles W. Sever. 1894: 578–582 [2012-01-02]. 
  57. ^ 57.0 57.1 麥禮謙數碼檔案 English/Chinese Glossary of Biographical and Institutional Names (Excel) （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） https://himmarklai.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Biographical-Institutional-Glossary.xls （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）
  58. ^ University of New Hampshire – History Department – Faculty Profiles. [2013-06-22]. （原始內容存檔於2013-06-22）. 
  59. ^ Lee, Erika. At America's gates: Chinese immigration during the exclusion era, 1882–1943. University of North Carolina Press. 2003: 103 [2012-01-02]. ISBN 978-0-8078-5448-8. 
  60. ^ Gee Fook Sing v. U.S., 49 F. 146 (9th Cir. 1892).
  61. ^ Slaughter-House Cases, 83（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 83） U.S. 36 (1873).
  62. ^ 62.0 62.1 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."
  63. ^ 63.0 63.1 63.2 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."
  64. ^ 64.0 64.1 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."
  65. ^ 轉寫自台山話發音：wong11 gim33 'ak3.
  66. ^ 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 ...."
  67. ^ 67.0 67.1 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.)
  68. ^ 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.)
  69. ^ 69.0 69.1 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".)
  70. ^ 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.)
  71. ^ Davis, Lisa. The Progeny of Citizen Wong. SF Weekly. 1998-11-04 [2013-12-09]. （原始內容存檔於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. 
  72. ^ 72.0 72.1 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."
  73. ^ Collins, George D. Citizenship by Birth. 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. 
  74. ^ 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."
  75. ^ In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 F. 382 （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） 互聯網檔案館的存檔，存檔日期2010-05-13. (N.D.Cal. 1896).
  76. ^ 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."
  77. ^ 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."
  78. ^ In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 F. at 386.
  79. ^ 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."
  80. ^ Slaughter-House Cases, 83（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 83） U.S. 36 (1873)
  81. ^ 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."
  82. ^ 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."
  83. ^ 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."
  84. ^ 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."
  85. ^ 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."
  86. ^ Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. at 74.
  87. ^ The native-born Chinese are legally adjudged to be citizens. 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. 
  88. ^ Order （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） 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.
  89. ^ 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."
  90. ^ 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."
  91. ^ 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."
  92. ^ 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...."
  93. ^ Semonche, John E. Charting the Future: The Supreme Court Responds to a Changing Society, 1890–1920. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 1978: 111. ISBN 0-313-20314-8. LCCN 77-94745. 
  94. ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 652 （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）.
  95. ^ Ashton, J. Hubley. Lincolniana: A Glimpse of Lincoln in 1864. 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. 
  96. ^ Biographies: Thomas D. Riordan. Federal Judicial Center. [2012-01-17]. （原始內容存檔於2021-02-28）. 
  97. ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 653.
  98. ^ Semonche (1978), p. 111. "Since [Associate Justice Joseph] McKenna did not hear the oral arguments, he did not participate in the decision."
  99. ^ 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."
  100. ^ American Society of International Law. Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of International Law. American Journal of International Law (New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co.). 1914, 8: 672 [2013-05-13]. （原始內容存檔於2021-03-08）. 
  101. ^ Wong Kim Ark Is a Citizen: Supreme Court Decision in Case of Chinese Born in America. Washington Post. 1898-03-29: 11. 
  102. ^ 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."
  103. ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 654.
  104. ^ 104.0 104.1 104.2 Kirkland, Brooke. Limiting the Application of Jus Soli: The Resulting Status of Undocumented Children in the United States. Buffalo Human Rights Law Review. 2006, 12: 200. 
  105. ^ 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...."
  106. ^ Bouvier, John. Citizen. Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia 1. Kansas City, MO: Vernon Law Book Company: 490. 1914 [2013-05-13]. （原始內容存檔於2021-03-08）. 
  107. ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 681.
  108. ^ Martin, David; Schuck, Peter. Immigration Stories. 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.... 
  109. ^ The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, 11（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 11） U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 (1812).
  110. ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 683.
  111. ^ 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."
  112. ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 699.
  113. ^ Bouvier, John. Chinese. Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia 1. Kansas City, MO: Vernon Law Book Co.: 482. 1914 [2013-05-13]. （原始內容存檔於2020-10-30）. 
  114. ^ Marshal （原文如此） B. Woodworth Inducted into Office. 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. 
  115. ^ Marshall B. Woodworth Killed. 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. 
  116. ^ 116.0 116.1 116.2 116.3 Woodworth, Marshall B. Who Are Citizens of the United States? Wong Kim Ark Case. American Law Review (St. Louis: Review Pub. Company). 1898, 32: 554–561 [2013-05-12]. （原始內容存檔於2020-10-30）. 
  117. ^ 117.0 117.1 Yale Law Journal. Jetsam and Flotsam: Citizenship of Chinaman Born in United States. 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. 
  118. ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 713.
  119. ^ 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."
  120. ^ 120.0 120.1 Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 731.
  121. ^ The question of whether the Constitution could override a treaty remained unresolved until a 1957 Supreme Court case, Reid v. Covert, 354（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 354） U.S. 1 (1957).
  122. ^ 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."
  123. ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 721.
  124. ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 725 n.2.
  125. ^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 726.
  126. ^ Przybyszewski, Linda. The Republic According to John Marshall Harlan. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. 1999: 120-121. ISBN 0-8078-2493-3. 
  127. ^ Questions of Citizenship. San Francisco Chronicle. 1898-03-30: 6. 
  128. ^ "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.
  129. ^ 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".)
  130. ^ 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.
  131. ^ Wadley, James B. Indian Citizenship and the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the United States Constitution: An Alternative to the Problems of the Full Faith and Credit and Comity?. Southern Illinois University Law Journal. Fall 2006, 31: 47. 
  132. ^ An Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue certificates of citizenship to Indians. （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） Pub.L. 68–175; 43 Stat. 253. June 2, 1924.
  133. ^ Haas, Theodore. The Legal Aspects of Indian Affairs from 1887 to 1957. 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. 
  134. ^ "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."
  135. ^ An Act to repeal the Chinese Exclusion Acts, to establish quotas, and for other purposes. （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） Pub.L. 78–199; 57 Stat. 600. 1943-12-17.
  136. ^ An Act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes. （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） Pub.L. 89–236; 79 Stat. 911. 1965-10-3.
  137. ^ Low, Elaine. An Unnoticed Struggle: A Concise History of Asian American Civil Rights Issues (PDF). San Francisco: Japanese American Citizens League: 4. 2008 [2012-01-27]. （原始內容 (PDF)存檔於2010-06-13）. 
  138. ^ See, e.g., Rogers v. Bellei, 401（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 401） 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."
  139. ^ 139.0 139.1 See, e.g., Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 356） 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."
  140. ^ Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 253） 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...."
  141. ^ Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 274） 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...."
  142. ^ Morrison v. California, 291（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 291） 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...."
  143. ^ Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 189） 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...."
  144. ^ Schick v. United States, 195（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 195） 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....'"
  145. ^ Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 372） 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...."
  146. ^ 146.0 146.1 146.2 Plyler v. Doe, 457（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 457） 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."
  147. ^ Asks U.S. Japanese Lose Citizenship. New York Times. 1942-06-27: 6. 
  148. ^ Japanese Citizens Win a Court Fight. New York Times. 1942-07-03: 7. 
  149. ^ 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."
  150. ^ Regan v. King, 134 F.2d 413 （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） (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."
  151. ^ Regan v. King, cert. denied, 319 U.S. 753 (1943).
  152. ^ 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).
  153. ^ Halagao, Avelino J. Citizens Denied: A Critical Examination of the Rabang Decision Rejecting United States Citizenship Claims by Persons Born in the Philippines During the Territorial Period. UCLA Asian Pacific American Law Journal. 1998, 5: 77. 
  154. ^ 154.0 154.1 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."
  155. ^ 155.0 155.1 "'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."
  156. ^ Ho (2006), p. 366. "There is increasing interest in repealing birthright citizenship for the children of aliens—especially undocumented persons."
  157. ^ 'Border Baby' boom strains S. Texas. Houston Chronicle. 2006-09-24 [2011-07-17]. （原始內容存檔於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. 
  158. ^ Wong, William. The citizenship of Wong Kim Ark. San Francisco Examiner. 1998-04-08 [2011-09-10]. 
  159. ^ 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.'"
  160. ^ 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."
  161. ^ 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."
  162. ^ Indians and Invaders: The Citizenship Clause and Illegal Aliens (PDF). University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania). 2008-3, 10 (3): 509 [2011-07-17]. （原始內容 (PDF)存檔於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. 
  163. ^ Graglia, Lino. Birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens: an irrational public policy. Texas Review of Law and Politics (Austin, TX: University of Texas, Austin). 2009, 14 (1): 10. 
  164. ^ Wood, Charles. Losing Control of America's Future—The Census, Birthright Citizenship, and Illegal Aliens. 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. 
  165. ^ 165.0 165.1 165.2 Rodriguez, Cristina M. The Second Founding: The Citizenship Clause, Original Meaning, and the Egalitarian Unity of the Fourteenth Amendment. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 2009, 11. 
  166. ^ Ho, James C. Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship and the Original Understanding of the 14th Amendment (PDF). The Green Bag. 2006, 9 (4): 368 [2012-01-06]. （原始內容 (PDF)存檔於2010-10-30）. 
  167. ^ 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."
  168. ^ Plyler v. Doe, 457（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 457） U.S. 202 (1982).
  169. ^ 169.0 169.1 Eisgruber, Christopher L. Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution. New York University Law Review. 1997, 72: 54–96. 
  170. ^ Ho, James C. Commentary: Birthright Citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment, and State Authority. University of Richmond Law Review. 2008-3, 42: 973. （原始內容存檔於2012-04-02）. 
  171. ^ Dunklee, Dennis R.; Shoop, Robert J. The Principal's Quick-Reference Guide to School Law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 2006: 241 [2013-05-14]. ISBN 978-1-4129-2594-5. （原始內容存檔於2020-11-01）. 
  172. ^ 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."
  173. ^ 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...."
  174. ^ Ngai, Mae M. Birthright Citizenship and the Alien Citizen. Fordham Law Review. 2007, 75: 2524 [2013-05-13]. （原始內容存檔於2021-02-25）. 
  175. ^ Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 Archive.is的存檔，存檔日期2012-07-17, H.R. 1868, 111th Cong. 2009-4-2.
  176. ^ Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）, H.R. 140, 112th Cong. 2011-1-5.
  177. ^ Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）, S. 723, 112th Cong. 2011-4-5.
  178. ^ Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to United States citizenship （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）, S.J.Res. 6, 111th Cong. 2009-1-16.
  179. ^ Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to United States citizenship[失效連結], S.J.Res. 2, 112th Cong. 2011-1-25.
  180. ^ Citizenship-By-Birth Faces Challenges. National Public Radio. 2010-05-28 [2012-01-29]. （原始內容存檔於2021-05-06）. 
  181. ^ Arizona Senate Panel Passes Sweeping Bills Targeting Illegals, Birthright Citizenship. FOX News. 2011-02-23 [2012-01-29]. （原始內容存檔於2015-10-01）. 
  182. ^ ACLU of Arizona Responds to Anti-14th Amendment Proposal Introduced Today By Arizona Lawmakers. American Civil Liberties Union. 2011-01-27 [2012-01-29]. （原始內容存檔於2013-08-15）. 

參考資料

[編輯]


外部連結

[編輯]
維基共享資源上的相關多媒體資源：美國訴黃金德案
維基文庫中的相關原始文獻：United States v. Wong Kim Ark

相關案例

[編輯]
美國聯邦最高法院
美國聯邦巡迴法院（英語：United States Circuit Courts）
美國聯邦地區法院
州法院

取自 "https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=美国诉黄金德案&oldid=80037833"