To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted
, isto ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor.The Appellant explicitly, albeit unsuccessfully, argued that the District Court erred in ruling "that therespondent is a natural-born citizen." The Supreme Court affirmed that ruling of the District Court.Below is a larger excerpt of the Appellant (United States) LOSING Brief. After that, I present excerpts fromthe Respondent (Appellee Won Kim Ark) WINNING Brief which delivered a serious, directly on point, beatdown to what is now birther blather. At the end is the very brief "Brief of Argument" from RespondentWong's Reply Brief.In the Supreme Court of the United States,October Term, 1895The United States, Appellant,v.Wong Kim Ark, Respondent.BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT,THE CASE.This is an appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California, and is taken from the judgment of that court, discharging the respondent on
habeas corpus cum causa
from the custody of the collector of port of San Francisco, who refused topermit the respondent to land in the United States for the reason that he is a Chinese laborerand within the inhibitory provisions of the Chinese exclusion act. The respondent claimedexemption from that act upon the ground that he was born within the United States, andthereby becase
a citizen thereof. The Government, while conceding the fact of birth,denied the conclusion of citizenship in that respect, contending that as the respondent was bornof
to wit, subjects of the Emperor of China, he was at birth a subject of China,claimed by that nation to be such, and therefore was not when born "subject to the jurisdiction"of the United States within the meaning and intent of the Constitution.The district court, following as being
the ruling of Mr. Justice Field in the case of Look Tin Sing(10 Sawyer, 358), sustained the claim of the respondent, held him to be a citizenby birth, and permitted him to land. The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated:
Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth?
The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as errorthe ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that groundholding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.[...] At 39:To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignorethe fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parentsto the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstratesits existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject tothe laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection whilewithin the territorial limits of the nation
-- a right of all aliens --
yet he was not born subject tothe "political jurisdiction" thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and orderappealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of thecollector.