Contesting American Identity: A Historical Overview

The fundamental question of “Who gets to be an American?” has been a continuous source of conflict throughout the nation's history. This struggle has often been fueled by anti-democratic impulses rooted in racism, suspicion, and paranoia.

The recent effort by the Trump Administration to restrict birthright citizenship represents just the most recent development in this long-running contest over national inclusion.

The Anti-Chinese Movement and Early Exclusion

During the latter half of the nineteenth century, intense anti-Chinese bigotry characterized the American West Coast. In response to continued arrivals despite restrictions, white residents in numerous communities organized to expel their Chinese neighbors.

Congress enacted restrictive laws, beginning in 1882, aimed at barring Chinese laborers from entering the country. Furthermore, federal lawmakers imposed a humiliating requirement that Chinese residents register and be photographed, or face arrest.

Resistance by the Six Companies

Chinese immigrants, organized by the Six Companies—a network of mutual-aid associations—defied these discriminatory measures across the United States. Leaders of the anti-Chinese movement demanded mass deportations, but federal officials ultimately conceded they lacked the necessary resources to carry them out.

The Six Companies funded a legal team to challenge the registration mandate, pursuing the case up to the Supreme Court, though they ultimately lost that specific challenge. By May 1894, 106,811 Chinese residents, including nearly 70,000 in California, had complied with the federal registration requirement.

The Landmark Case of Wong Kim Ark

Fears of Native-Born Chinese Citizenship

Historian Hardeep Dhillon of the University of Pennsylvania uncovered a crucial letter from 1895 that illuminates the origins of the birthright citizenship debate. The letter, dated July 10, 1895, was written by John H. Wise, the San Francisco customs official, to John G. Carlisle, the Secretary of the Treasury.

Wise expressed strong opposition to Chinese immigration and alerted Washington about a new organization of “alleged native born Chinese.” He warned that this group intended “to demand rights for its members as citizens, to vote at elections, and take part in the politics of this country.”

Legal Challenges to the Fourteenth Amendment

Wise was consulting with George D. Collins, a San Francisco lawyer who promoted the legal theory that children born to Chinese immigrant parents were automatically subject to a foreign power at birth. This directly challenged the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, which states that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens.

Wise urged the Department of Justice to hire Collins and swiftly pursue a test case before the Supreme Court against “some of the alleged native born Chinese, now knocking for admission.”

The Supreme Court Ruling

Shortly thereafter, Wong Kim Ark, a cook born in San Francisco who had been visiting China, was denied entry upon returning to the city, despite possessing an affidavit confirming his American birth. U.S. Attorney Henry Foote argued that Wong remained a “Chinese person” due to his race, language, color, and dress, and thus was not an American citizen.

This became the pivotal test case. In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled 6–2 in favor of Wong, affirming his right to citizenship. Justice Horace Gray’s majority opinion referenced common-law doctrine but stressed that denying citizenship to native-born Chinese would also exclude thousands of people of European parentage considered U.S. citizens.

The Evolving Definition of Citizenship

Early Constitutional Ambiguities

The fight over inclusion persists partly because the Constitution’s original text never explicitly defined the phrase “citizen of the United States.” In the Republic’s early years, the Founders prioritized population growth, making entry barriers seem counterproductive.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was broad in terms of residency (two years) and character, but it was narrowly restricted by stipulating eligibility only for “free white persons.” This established an early, racially defined boundary for citizenship.

Douglass and the Vision of Composite Nationality

The Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 secured citizenship for four million formerly enslaved Black people and guaranteed them equal protection. Frederick Douglass, the renowned abolitionist, became an unlikely advocate for Chinese immigrants, championing their immigration and naturalization as essential to America’s “composite nationality.” Douglass envisioned the U.S. as a “perfect national illustration of the unity and dignity of the human family.”

Modern Erasures of Citizenship

Legal scholar Amanda Frost documents in her 2021 book, “You Are Not American,” the long history of stripping citizenship from groups deemed undesirable based on appearance, religion, or traditions. Frost terms this practice “citizenship stripping.”

Her research includes the subsequent struggles of Wong Kim Ark’s Chinese-born sons, three of whom faced lengthy detentions before gaining entry. Other examples include Japanese Americans renouncing citizenship to escape WWII internment camps and the mistaken deportations of Mexican Americans during the 1950s Operation Wetback sweeps.

Contemporary Challenges to Birthright Status

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding President Trump’s executive order aimed at curtailing birthright citizenship. The order seeks to eliminate this status for children whose parents are not citizens or permanent residents, arguing such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.

The initial arguments focused narrowly on nationwide judicial injunctions, delaying a ruling on the core substance of the order. Dhillon suggests the 1895 Wise letter reveals that the historical drive to limit birthright citizenship was specifically precipitated by the fear of Chinese Americans gaining political rights.

The Trump Administration’s actions targeting immigrants—whether undocumented, asylum seekers, or those with temporary status—are driven by factors including racist nostalgia and consolidation of power. For the administration’s core constituency, these groups represent an external enemy that must be repelled.