Podcast appearances and mentions of wong kim ark

This Day in Legal History: Second Bank of the United States VetoedOn July 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed legislation that would have renewed the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, setting off a fierce political and constitutional conflict known as the “Bank War.” The Bank, originally chartered in 1816, acted as a quasi-governmental financial institution and played a central role in stabilizing the U.S. economy. Jackson, however, saw the Bank as a symbol of entrenched privilege and a threat to democratic values. In his veto message, he argued that the Bank was unconstitutional—even though the Supreme Court had previously upheld its legitimacy in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)—and that it concentrated too much financial power in the hands of a wealthy elite.Jackson framed his opposition as a defense of the common man against corporate monopoly. His veto marked a dramatic assertion of presidential power, expanding the scope of the executive's role in legislative review. By directly challenging a long-standing institution supported by Congress and the courts, Jackson redefined the balance between branches of government. His veto was also politically strategic, rallying populist support ahead of the 1832 presidential election, which he would go on to win decisively.The fallout was immense: Jackson's administration began withdrawing federal funds from the Bank and redistributing them to selected state banks, derogatorily termed “pet banks.” This redistribution triggered economic instability and helped contribute to the Panic of 1837. Despite intense opposition from figures like Henry Clay and Nicholas Biddle, the Bank's president, Jackson remained steadfast, and the Bank's federal charter ultimately expired in 1836.The legal significance of this event lies in its reimagining of the veto as a political, not merely constitutional, tool. Jackson's interpretation of the Constitution, driven by populist ideals rather than judicial precedent, established a precedent for a more active and independent executive.A federal judge in New Hampshire, Joseph Laplante, is set to hear arguments on whether to block President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship, despite a recent Supreme Court decision limiting the use of nationwide injunctions. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is asking the court to grant class-action status to a lawsuit aimed at protecting U.S.-born children whose parents are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. If class status is granted, it could enable a nationwide block on the policy through the class action mechanism—something the Supreme Court ruling left open as an exception to its injunction restrictions.Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office in January, would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a citizen or green card holder. The Supreme Court previously narrowed three injunctions against the order, but did not rule on its constitutionality. Opponents argue the order violates the 14th Amendment and contradicts the precedent set in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which affirmed that birthright citizenship applies regardless of a parent's immigration status.Judge Laplante had already ruled in February that the policy was likely unconstitutional and issued a limited injunction affecting only certain advocacy groups. The ACLU is now urging him to expand this to a broader class of affected families, citing the risk of statelessness or undocumented status for tens of thousands of children. The Justice Department, meanwhile, claims the plaintiffs are too diverse to form a single legal class and that the suit bypasses proper legal procedures.Judge to weigh blocking Trump on birthright citizenship despite Supreme Court ruling | ReutersThe Trump administration escalated its standoff with Harvard University by threatening its accreditation and subpoenaing records related to international students. Federal officials claimed Harvard may have violated anti-discrimination laws by failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students, citing a Title VI investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services. As a result, the Education and Health Departments formally notified Harvard's accrediting body that the university might not meet its standards. However, the accreditor clarified it operates independently and typically allows schools up to four years to come into compliance.Simultaneously, the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to issue subpoenas targeting potential "criminality and misconduct" among student visa holders at Harvard. These actions follow previous federal efforts to block Harvard from admitting international students and to freeze billions in grants, which the university is currently challenging in court. A judge had already halted Trump's proclamation barring foreign students, though the administration is appealing that ruling.Trump accused Harvard of fostering antisemitism and "woke" ideology, while the university insists the administration's actions are politically motivated retaliation infringing on its First Amendment rights. Nearly 6,800 international students—about 27% of Harvard's student body—could be affected if the administration succeeds in stripping the university of its ability to host them. A separate lawsuit seeking to unfreeze $2.5 billion in grants is set to be heard on July 21.Trump administration threatens Harvard's accreditation, seeks records on foreign students | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it will no longer consider a farmer's race or sex when administering many of its key programs, including those related to loans, commodities, and conservation. The decision follows directives from the Trump administration aimed at rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across federal agencies. According to the USDA, the shift reflects its belief that past discrimination has been sufficiently addressed and that programs should now focus solely on merit and fairness.The final rule, signed by the USDA's acting General Counsel, states that race- or sex-based criteria will no longer influence program eligibility or funding decisions, though some advantages remain for beginning and military veteran farmers. For decades, the agency had designated certain groups—such as women and farmers of color—as "socially disadvantaged," often creating set-asides or prioritizations for them. This latest move effectively ends that practice.Critics argue the change undermines transparency and accessibility for farmers of color who have historically faced systemic exclusion. Legal scholar Margo Schlanger, formerly involved in USDA civil rights work, said the rule shuts off a vital avenue for ensuring equitable access to federal support. The decision comes despite the fact that only about 4.5% of U.S. farmers identify as nonwhite or multiracial, according to the 2022 Census of Agriculture.US agriculture agency to end consideration of race, sex in many farm programs | ReutersThe Trump administration filed a lawsuit against California, arguing that the state's animal welfare laws concerning egg and poultry farming unlawfully raise egg prices nationwide and violate federal law. The complaint, brought in federal court in Los Angeles, claims that California's regulations conflict with the Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970, which mandates national uniformity in egg safety standards. The federal government asserts that only it has the authority to regulate egg safety and that California's restrictions burden interstate commerce.California laws passed by voter initiatives in 2008 and 2018 prohibit confining hens so tightly that they cannot move freely. These measures were designed to reduce animal cruelty and prevent foodborne illness. However, the federal government argues that while California can regulate farms within its borders, it cannot impose its requirements on out-of-state producers selling eggs in California.This is not the first legal battle over the issue. In 2014, several states sued California on similar grounds and lost at both the district and appellate levels. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld California's 2018 animal welfare measure in a separate challenge from pig farmers in 2023, further solidifying the state's right to set agricultural standards for products sold within its borders.US government sues California over egg prices | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter Hyphenly; it's our no-fluff love letter with hot takes, heartfelt stories, and all the feels of living in between cultures. Come for the nuance, stay for the vibes! Link below ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://immigrantlys-newsletter.beehiiv.com/subscribe⁠⁠⁠⁠ What does it really mean to be an American? In this riveting episode of Immigrantly, host Saadia Khan takes us on a powerful journey from the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark to Donald Trump's 2025 executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. Through historical context, legal nuance, and racial reckoning, Saadia explores the fragility of the 14th Amendment and what's at stake for immigrant families today. Timely, urgent, and deeply personal, this episode challenges us to confront who gets to belong in America and who decides. Join us as we create new intellectual engagement for our audience. You can find more information at ⁠⁠⁠⁠http://immigrantlypod.com⁠⁠⁠⁠. Please share the love and leave us a review on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ & ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to help more people find us!  You can connect with Saadia on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@swkkhan Email: ⁠⁠⁠⁠saadia@immigrantlypod.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ Host & Producer: Saadia Khan I Content Writer: Michaela Strauther I Editorial review: Shei Yu I Sound Designer & Editor: Lou Raskin I Immigrantly Theme Music: Simon Hutchinson | Other Music: Epidemic Sound Immigrantly podcast is an Immigrantly Media Production. For advertising inquiries, contact us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠info@immigrantlypod.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ Don't forget to subscribe to our Apple podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ channel ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠for insightful podcasts. Follow us on social media for updates and behind-the-scenes content. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Federal Housing AdministrationOn June 27, 1934, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created through the National Housing Act, marking a major shift in the federal government's role in the housing market. The FHA was designed to address the housing crisis of the Great Depression, when foreclosures were rampant and private lenders were reluctant to issue long-term mortgages. By insuring loans made by private lenders, the FHA significantly reduced the risk of default, making it easier and more affordable for Americans to buy homes.The FHA introduced standardized, amortized 20- and 30-year mortgages—innovations that quickly became industry norms. These reforms expanded access to home financing for middle-class families and jump-started suburban development. However, the agency's early policies also entrenched racial segregation through redlining, where predominantly Black neighborhoods were systematically denied FHA-backed loans.While the FHA has since evolved and is now part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), its legacy is a mix of increased homeownership and the deepening of racial disparities in wealth and housing. The legal framework it helped establish continues to shape U.S. housing policy today, making it a pivotal moment in both real estate law and civil rights history. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy voiced alarm over the state of American political discourse during a recent international judicial forum, warning that the tone of current debates poses a threat to democracy and freedom. Speaking without directly referencing President Trump, Kennedy criticized the rise of identity politics and emphasized that civil discourse should be about issues, not partisan affiliations. He argued that judges are essential to a functioning democracy and must be protected—both physically and in terms of public respect.Other speakers, including South African jurist Richard Goldstone and U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, echoed Kennedy's concerns. Goldstone condemned personal attacks on judges who ruled against the current administration, while Salas highlighted the growing danger judges face, referencing her own experience with targeted violence and the record-high levels of threats now being reported in the U.S.The event underscored a growing consensus among jurists worldwide: that political attacks on the judiciary undermine democratic institutions and risk eroding the rule of law.Retired US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy warns 'freedom is at risk' | ReutersA federal judge has rejected a joint attempt by Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to finalize a reduced settlement in their long-running legal battle over unregistered XRP token sales. U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres criticized both parties for proposing a $50 million fine in lieu of a previously imposed $125 million penalty and for attempting to nullify a permanent injunction she had ordered.Judge Torres ruled in 2023 that Ripple's public XRP sales weren't securities, but $728 million in sales to institutional investors violated federal securities laws. While both sides appealed, they later proposed to settle—if the court would cancel the injunction and approve the reduced fine. Torres refused, stating they lacked authority to override a court's final judgment involving a violation of congressional statute.She emphasized that exceptional circumstances justifying the request were not present and that vacating a permanent injunction would undermine the public interest and the administration of justice. The SEC and Ripple still have the option to continue their appeals or drop them entirely.The case is notable amid a broader shift under President Trump's second term, during which the SEC has dropped several high-profile crypto enforcement actions. XRP remains one of the top cryptocurrencies by market value.SEC, Ripple wants to settle crypto lawsuit, but US judge rebuffs them | ReutersThe Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to end automatic birthright citizenship by narrowing the scope of judicial injunctions. Previously, lower courts had issued nationwide injunctions blocking the policy, but the Court ruled these injunctions should apply only to the parties involved in the lawsuits. This means that the policy can now proceed in most states, except those like New Hampshire where separate legal challenges remain in effect. The Court's decision followed ideological lines, with the conservative majority backing the administration and liberal justices dissenting. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized that courts must not overreach their authority even when they find executive actions unlawful. In contrast, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned the ruling could erode the rule of law by allowing inconsistent application of federal policy across states.The ruling does not address the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship, leaving that question open for future litigation. The Trump administration's executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, reinterprets the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause to exclude children born in the U.S. to non-citizen or non-resident parents. This reinterpretation challenges the longstanding understanding established by the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed that nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil are citizens. The administration has argued that judges lack the authority to impose broad injunctions and that states challenging the policy lack standing. While the policy remains blocked in certain jurisdictions, the administration can now continue planning for its implementation and potentially face a patchwork of future legal challenges.Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship planIn a piece I wrote for Forbes yesterday, the Trump administration briefly floated Section 899, a provision dubbed the “revenge tax,” as a retaliatory measure against countries imposing taxes deemed discriminatory toward U.S. companies—particularly tech giants. This measure, hidden within the broader One Big Beautiful Bill Act, proposed punitive tax increases on income earned in the U.S. by individuals and entities linked to “discriminatory foreign countries.” The policy was a response to international developments like the OECD's Pillar 2 framework and digital services taxes (DSTs), which the U.S. perceived as disproportionately targeting American firms.Section 899 would have enabled the Treasury to impose annual 5% tax hikes on everything from dividends to real estate gains, even overriding exemptions for sovereign wealth funds. What made the provision particularly aggressive was its vague triggering criteria—any foreign tax Treasury considered “unfair” could activate the penalties, without congressional oversight.Despite its bold intent, Section 899 was ultimately abandoned. It generated concern among investors and foreign governments alike, with critics warning it would destabilize capital markets and act as an unofficial sanctions regime. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent eventually signaled its withdrawal, citing improved diplomatic relations. Though shelved for now, the idea may resurface if international tax disputes escalate.Section 899—The ‘Revenge Tax' That Didn't SurviveA double dose of me this week, another piece I wrote for Forbes:The Pro Codes Act, currently before Congress as H.R.4072, poses a serious threat to public access to the law by allowing private organizations to retain copyright over technical standards—even after those standards are incorporated by reference into statutes and regulations. Although pitched as a transparency measure, the bill effectively transforms enforceable legal obligations into intellectual property governed by restrictive licenses and online viewer limitations.The Act would require standards to be “publicly accessible,” but this access might mean only being able to view documents behind login walls, with no ability to download, search, or integrate them into legal or compliance tools. This is particularly troubling in areas like tax law, where these standards often form the basis for determining eligibility for deductions or credits.By commodifying access to legal standards, the Pro Codes Act would introduce a two-tiered system: well-resourced firms could pay for commercial access, while small legal clinics, nonprofits, and individuals could find themselves effectively barred from the rules they're legally obligated to follow. The result is an unequal legal landscape where justice becomes contingent on financial capacity.The bill directly undermines a key legal principle reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2020: laws and materials carrying the force of law cannot be copyrighted. Permitting private entities to control access to mandatory standards shifts power away from the public and toward entities seeking to monetize compliance.Pro Codes Act—Or, What If The Law Came Behind A Paywall?This week's closing theme is Variations sérieuses, Op. 54 by Felix Mendelssohn—a composer whose elegance, intellect, and structural precision made him one of the early Romantic era's brightest voices. Born into a wealthy, culturally vibrant German-Jewish family in 1809, Mendelssohn was a child prodigy whose musical maturity arrived astonishingly early. He played a pivotal role in reviving J.S. Bach's legacy and was admired for his orchestral works, choral music, and virtuosic piano writing.Composed in 1841, the Variations sérieuses reflect a side of Mendelssohn that is often overshadowed by his lighter, more lyrical pieces. Written as a contribution to a fundraising album for a monument to Beethoven, the work pays tribute to that master's weight and depth. In this set of 17 variations on a solemn original theme, Mendelssohn channels both Classical form and Romantic intensity. The variations begin introspectively but grow in technical difficulty and emotional force, culminating in a stormy, almost defiant finale.Unlike many variation sets of the time, which favored decorative flourishes, Mendelssohn's sérieuses live up to their name: they are dense, architecturally rigorous, and deeply expressive. The piece showcases his command of counterpoint, his sensitivity to dynamic contrasts, and his ability to build drama without sacrificing formal clarity. It's music that demands both interpretive depth and virtuosity—qualities that have kept it central to the serious piano repertoire for over 180 years. Mendelssohn once described music as a language too precise for words, and this piece speaks volumes in that tongue. It is a fitting and focused way to close the week.Without further ado, Variations sérieuses, Op. 54 by Felix Mendelssohn – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Tonight Producer Swati Rayasam showcases a community panel of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech.   Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – “Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us” SHOW TRANSCRIPT Swati Rayasam: You are tuned in to APEX Express on KPFA. My name is Swati Rayasam and I'm back as your special producer for this episode. Tonight we have an incredible community panel titled Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison. This panel explores the history of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and [00:01:00] safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech. I'll pass it on to UC Berkeley Ethnic Studies Professor Mike Chang to kick us off. Mike and Harvey: We're starting on Berkeley time, right on time at three 10, and I want to introduce Harvey Dong. Harvey Dong: Okay. The sponsors for today's event include, AADS- Asian American and Diaspora studies program, uc, Berkeley, Asian American Research Center, the Center for Race and Gender Department of Ethnic Studies- all part of uc, Berkeley. Off campus, we have the following community groups. Chinese for Affirmative Action, Asian Law Caucus, [00:02:00] Asian Prisoners Support Committee, and East Wind Books. Okay, so that's, quite a few in terms of coalition people coming together. My name is Harvey Dong and I'm also a lecturer in the AADS program and part of the ethnic studies department. I can say that I exist here as the result of birthright citizenship won by Ancestor Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Otherwise, I would not be here. We want to welcome everyone here today, for this important panel discussion titled: Deport, Exclude, Revoke, Imprison – Immigration and citizenship rights during crisis. Yes, we are in a deep crisis today. The Chinese characters for crisis is way G in Mandarin or way gay in [00:03:00] Cantonese, which means danger and opportunity. We are in a moment of danger and at the same time in a moment of opportunity. Our communities are under attack from undocumented, documented, and those with citizenship. We see urgency in coming together. In 1898, the US Supreme Court case, US versus Wong Kim Ark held that under the 14th Amendment birthright, citizenship applies to all people born in the United States. Regardless of their race or their parents' national origin or immigration status. On May 15th this year, the Supreme Court will hear a President Donald Trump's request to implement an executive order that will end birthright citizenship already before May 15th, [00:04:00] deportations of US citizen children are taking place. Recently, three US citizen children, one 2-year-old with cancer have been deported with their undocumented parents. The numbers of US citizen children are much higher being deported because it's less covered in the press. Unconstitutional. Yes, definitely. And it's taking place now. Also today, more than 2.7 million southeast Asian Americans live in the US but at least 16,000 community members have received final orders of deportation, placing their lives and families in limbo. This presents a mental health challenge and extreme economic hardship for individuals and families who do not know whether their next day in the US will be their last. Wong Kim Ark's [00:05:00] struggle and the lessons of Wong Kim Ark, continue today. His resistance provides us with a grounding for our resistance. So they say deport, exclude, revoke, imprison. We say cease and desist. You can say that every day it just seems like the system's gone amuk. There's constant attacks on people of color, on immigrants and so forth. And our only solution, or the most important solution is to resist, legally resist, but also to protest, to demand cease and desist. Today brings together campus and community people. We want you all to be informed because if you're uninformed , you can't do anything. Okay? You have to know where things are at. It's nothing new. What they're trying to do, in 1882, [00:06:00] during times of economic crisis, they scapegoated Asian Americans. Today there's economic, political crisis. And the scapegoating continues. They're not doing anything new. You know, it's old stuff, but we have to realize that, and we have to look at the past in terms of what was done to fight it and also build new solidarities today. Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. He went through, lots of obstacles. He spent three months in Angel Island he was arrested after he won his case because he was constantly being harassed wherever he went. His kids when they came over were also, spotted as being Wong Kim Ark's, children, and they too had to spend months at Angel Island. So Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. We need to learn from him today. Our [00:07:00] next, special guest is Mr. Norman Wong, a good friend of mine. He was active here in the third world Liberation Front strike that led to ethnic studies. He did a lots of work for the development of Asian American studies and we've been out in touch for about, what, 40 years? So I'm really happy that he's able to come back to Berkeley and to talk about yourself, if you wish, maybe during the Q and a, but to talk about , the significance of your great-grandfather's case. Okay, so Norman Wong, let's give him a hand. Norman Wong: Hello, my name's Norman Wong. I'm the great grandson, Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was [00:08:00] born in the USA, like my great-grandfather. I, too was born American in the same city, San Francisco, more than 75 years after him. We are both Americans, but unlike him, my citizenship has never been challenged. His willingness to stand up and fight made the difference for his struggles, my humble thanks. Wong Kim Ark however, was challenged more than once. In late 1889 as an American, he traveled to China in July, 1890. He returned to his birth city. He had his papers and had no problems with reentry. In 1895, after a similar trip, he was stopped from disembarking and was placed into custody for five months aboard ship in port. [00:09:00] Citizenship denied, the reason the Chinese exclusion Act 1882. He had to win this case in district court, provide $250 bail and then win again in the United States Supreme Court, March 28th, 1898. Only from these efforts, he was able to claim his citizenship granted by birthright from the 14th Amendment and gain his freedom. That would not be the last challenge to his being American. My mother suffered similar treatment. She like my great-grandfather, was born in America. In 1942, she was forced with her family and thousands of other Japanese Americans to relocation camps an experience unspoken by her family. [00:10:00] I first learned about Japanese American internment from history books. Executive order 9066 was the command. No due process, citizenship's rights stripped. She was not American enough. Now we have executive order 14160. It is an attack on birthright citizenship. We cannot let this happen. We must stand together. We are a nation of immigrants. What kind of nation are we to be with stateless children? Born to no country. To this, I say no. We as Americans need to embrace each other and [00:11:00] cherish each new life. Born in the USA. Thank you. Harvey Dong: Thank you, Norman. And Annie Lee, will moderate, the following panel, involving campus and community representatives who will be sharing their knowledge and experience. Annie Lee, Esquire is an attorney. She's also the, managing director of policy for Chinese Affirmative Action, and she's also, heavily involved in the birthright citizenship issue. Annie Lee: Thank you so much Harvey for that very warm welcome and thank you again to Norman for your remarks. I think it's incredible that you're speaking up at this moment, to preserve your ancestors' legacy because it impacts not just you and him, but all of us [00:12:00] here. So thank you. As Harvey said, my name is Annie Lee and I have this honor of working with this amazing panel of esteemed guest we have today. So I will ask each of them to introduce themselves. And I will start, because I would love to hear your name, pronouns. Title and organization as well as your personal or professional relationship with the US Immigration System. So my name's Annie. I use she her pronouns. I'm the managing Director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action, which is a non-profit based in San Francisco Chinatown. We provide direct services to the monolingual working class Chinese community, and also advocate for policies to benefit all Asian Americans. My relationship with the immigration system is I am the child of two Chinese immigrants who did not speak English. And so I just remember lots of time spent on the phone when I was a kid with INS, and then it became U-S-C-I-S just trying to ask them what happened to [00:13:00] a family member's application for naturalization, for visas so I was the interpreter for them growing up and even today. I will pass it to Letty. Leti Volpp: Hi everybody. Thank you so much, Annie. Thank you Harvey. Thank you, Norman. That was profoundly moving to hear your remarks and I love the way that you framed our conversation, Harvey. I'm Leti Volpp. I am the Robert d and Leslie k Raven, professor of Law and Access to Justice at the Berkeley Law, school. I'm also the director of the campus wide , center for Race and Gender, which is a legacy of the Third World Liberation Front, and the 1999, student movement, that led to the creation of the center. I work on immigration law and citizenship theory, and I am the daughter, second of four, children of my mother who was an immigrant from China, and my father who was an immigrant [00:14:00] from Germany. So I'll pass it. Thank you. Ke Lam: Thank you. Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Norman. So my name's Key. I go by he, him pronouns or Nghiep “Ke” Lam, is my full name. I work for an organization called Asian Prison Support Committee. It's been around for like over two decades now, and it started behind three guys advocating for ethics study, Asian and Pacific Islander history. And then it was starting in San Quent State Prison. All three of them pushed for ethics study, hard and the result is they all was put into solitary confinement. And many years later, after all three got out, was Eddie Zang, Mike Romero and Mike no. And when they got out, Eddie came back and we pushed for ethics study again, and we actually got it started in 2013. And it's been going on to today. Then the programs is called Roots, restoring our Original True Self. So reconnecting with who we are. And one of Eddie's main, mottos that really stuck with me. He said, we need to all connect to our chi, right? And I'm like, okay, I understand what chi is, and he said no. He [00:15:00] said, you need to connect to your culture, your history, which result to equal your identity, who you are as a person. So, the more we study about our history and our culture, like, birthright citizen, it empower us to know, who we are today. Right? And also part of that is to how do we take down the veil of shame in our community, the veil of trauma that's impacting our community as well. We don't talk about issue that impact us like immigration. So I'm a 1.5 generation. So I was born in Vietnam from Chinese family that migrant from China to Vietnam started business after the fall of Vietnam War. We all got kicked out but more than that, I am directly impacted because I am a stranded deportee, somebody that got their, legal status taken away because of criminal conviction. And as of any moment now, I could actually be taken away. So I live in that, right at that threshold of like uncertainty right now. And the people I work with, which are hundreds of people, are fixing that same uncertainty.[00:16:00] Annie Lee: Thank you, Ke. I'm gonna pass it to our panelists who are joining us virtually, including Bun. Can you start and then we'll pass it to Chris after. Bun: Hey everybody, thank you for having me. My name is Bun. I'm the co-director of Asian Prison Support Committee. I'm also, 1.5 generation former incarcerated and under, direct impact of immigration. Christopher Lapinig: Hi everyone. My name is Christopher Lapinig, my pronouns are he, him and Sha. I am a senior staff attorney on the Democracy and National Initiatives Team at Asian Law Caucus, which you may know is the country's first and oldest legal aid in civil rights organization, dedicated to serving, low income immigrant and underserved AAPI communities. In terms of my connection to the immigration system, I am, I also am a beneficiary of a birthright citizenship, and my parents are both immigrants from the Philippines. I was born in New York City. My [00:17:00] extended family spans both in the US and the Philippines. After graduating law school and clerking, my fellowship project was focused on providing litigation and immigration services to, survivors of labor trafficking in the Filipino community. While working at Asian Americans Advancing Justice Los Angeles, I also was engaged in, class action litigation, challenging the first Trump administration's practices, detaining immigrants in the Vietnamese and Cambodian communities. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Thank you Bun. Let's start off by talking about birthright citizenship since it's a big topic these days. On the very, very first day of Trump's administration, he issued a flurry of executive orders, including one that would alter birthright citizenship. But I wanna take us back to the beginning because why do we have this right? It is a very broad right? If you were born in the United States, you are an American citizen. Where does that come from? So I wanna pose the first question to Letty to talk about the [00:18:00] origins of birthright citizenship., Leti Volpp: Very happy to. So what's being fought about is a particular clause in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, which says, all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Okay, so that's the text. There's been a very long understanding of what this text means, which says that regardless of the immigration status of one's parents, all children born here are entitled to birthright citizenship with three narrow exceptions, which I will explain. So the Trump administration executive order, wants to exclude from birthright citizenship, the children of undocumented immigrants, and the children of people who are here on lawful temporary visas. So for example, somebody here on an [00:19:00] F1 student visa, somebody on a H one B worker visa, somebody here is a tourist, right? And basically they're saying we've been getting this clause wrong for over a hundred years. And I will explain to you why I think they're making this very dubious argument. Essentially when you think about where the 14th amendment came from, in the United States, in the Antebellum era, about 20% of people were enslaved and there were lots of debates about citizenship. Who should be a citizen? Who could be a citizen? And in 1857, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case called Dread Scott, where they said that no person who was black, whether free or enslaved, could ever be a citizen. The Civil War gets fought, they end slavery. And then the question arose, well, what does this mean for citizenship? Who's a citizen of the United States? And in 1866, Congress [00:20:00] enacts a law called the Civil Rights Act, which basically gave rights to people that were previously denied and said that everybody born in the United States is a birthright citizen. This gets repeated in the 14th Amendment with the very important interpretation of this clause in Norman's great-grandfather's case, the case of Wong Kim Ark. So this came before the Supreme Court in 1898. If you think about the timing of this, the federal government had basically abandoned the reconstruction project, which was the project of trying to newly enfranchised, African Americans in the United States. The Supreme Court had just issued the decision, Plessy versus Ferguson, which basically legitimated the idea that, we can have separate, but equal, as a doctrine of rights. So it was a nation that was newly hostile to the goals of the Reconstruction Congress, and so they had this case come before them, whereas we heard [00:21:00] from Norman, we have his great-grandfather born in San Francisco, Chinatown, traveling back and forth to China. His parents having actually left the United States. And this was basically presented as a test case to the Supreme Court. Where the government tried to argue, similar to what the Trump administration is arguing today, that birthright citizenship, that clause does not guarantee universal birthright citizenship saying that children of immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because their parents are also not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Supreme Court took over a year to decide the case. They knew that it would be controversial, and the majority of the court said, this provision is clear. It uses universal language. It's intended to apply to children of all immigrants. One of the things that's interesting about [00:22:00] what the, well I'll let Chris actually talk about what the Trump administration, is trying to do, but let me just say that in the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Supreme Court makes very clear there only three narrow exceptions to who is covered by the 14th Amendment. They're children of diplomats. So for example, if the Ambassador of Germany is in the United States, and, she has a daughter, like her daughter should not become a birthright citizen, right? This is why there's diplomatic immunity. Why, for example, in New York City, there are millions of dollars apparently owed to the city, in parking tickets by ambassadors who don't bother to pay them because they're not actually subject to the jurisdiction in the United States. Okay? Second category, children of Native Americans who are seen as having a sovereign relationship of their own, where it's like a nation within a nation, kind of dynamic, a country within a country. And there were detailed conversations in the congressional debate about the [00:23:00] 14th Amendment, about both of these categories of people. The third category, were children born to a hostile invading army. Okay? So one argument you may have heard people talk about is oh, I think of undocumented immigrants as an invading army. Okay? If you look at the Wong Kim Ark decision, it is very clear that what was intended, by this category of people were a context where the hostile invading army is actually in control of that jurisdiction, right? So that the United States government is not actually governing that space so that the people living in it don't have to be obedient, to the United States. They're obedient to this foreign power. Okay? So the thread between all three of these exceptions is about are you having to be obedient to the laws of the United States? So for example, if you're an undocumented immigrant, you are subject to being criminally prosecuted if you commit a crime, right? Or [00:24:00] you are potentially subjected to deportation, right? You have to obey the law of the United States, right? You are still subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Okay? But the Trump administration, as we're about to hear, is making different arguments. Annie Lee: Thank you so much, Leti for that historical context, which I think is so important because, so many different communities of color have contributed to the rights that we have today. And so what Leti is saying here is that birthright citizenship is a direct result of black liberation and fighting for freedom in the Civil War and making sure that they were then recognized as full citizens. And then reinforced, expanded, by Wong Kim Ark. And now we are all beneficiaries and the vast majority of Americans get our citizenship through birth. Okay? That is true for white people, black people. If you're born here, you get your ci. You don't have to do anything. You don't have to go to court. You don't have to say anything. You are a US citizen. And now as Leti referenced, there's this fringe legal theory that, thankfully we've got lawyers like [00:25:00] Chris who are fighting this. So Chris, you're on the ALC team, one of many lawsuits against the Trump administration regarding this unlawful executive order. Can you tell us a little bit about the litigation and the arguments, but I actually really want you to focus on what are the harms of this executive order? Sometimes I think particularly if you are a citizen, and I am one, sometimes we take what we have for granted and you don't even realize what citizenship means or confers. So Chris, can you talk about the harms if this executive order were to go through? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. As Professor Volpp sort of explained this executive order really is an assault on a fundamental constitutional right that has existed for more than a hundred years at this point, or, well, about 125 years. And if it is allowed to be implemented, the harms would really be devastating and far reach. So first, you know, children born in the us, the [00:26:00] parents without permanent status, as permissible said, would be rendered effectively stateless, in many cases. And these are of course, children, babies who have never known any other home, yet they would be denied the basic rights of citizen. And so the order targets a vast range of families, and not just undocument immigrants, but also those with work visas, student visas, humanitarian productions like TPS, asylum seekers, fleeing persecution, DACA recipients as well. And a lot of these communities have deep ties to Asian American community. To our history, and of course are, essential part, of our social fabric. In practical terms, children born without birthright citizenship would be denied access to healthcare through Medicaid, through denied access to snap nutritional assistance, even basic IDs like social security numbers, passports. And then as they grow older, they'd be barred from voting, serving on juries and even [00:27:00] working. And then later on in life, they might be, if they, are convicted of a crime and make them deportable, they could face deportation to countries that they never stepped, foot off basically. And so this basically is this executive order threatened at risk, creating exactly what the drafters of the 14th Amendment wanted to prevent the creation of a permanent underclass of people in the United States. It'll just get amplified over time. If you can imagine if there's one generation of people born without citizenship, there will be a second generation born and a third and fourth, and it'll just get amplified over time. And so it truly is just, hard to get your mind around exactly what the impact of this EO would be. Annie Lee: Thanks, Chris. And where are we in the litigation right now? Harvey referenced, a hearing at the Supreme Court on May 15th, but, tell us a little bit about the injunction and the arguments on the merits and when that can, when we can expect [00:28:00] that. Christopher Lapinig: Yeah, so there were a number of lawsuits filed immediately after, the administration issued its exec order on January 20th. Asian Law Caucus we filed with the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project. Literally we were the first lawsuit, literally hours after the executive order was issued. By early February, federal judges across the country had issued nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking implementation of the order. Our case is actually not a nationwide injunction. And so there're basically, I believe three cases that are going up to the Supreme Court. And, the Trump administration appealed to various circuit courts to try to undo these injunctions. But all circuit courts upheld the injunctive relief and and so now the Supreme Court is going to be hearing arguments on May 15th. And so it has not actually ruled on whether or not the executive order is constitutional, but it's going to. I mean, it remains to be seen exactly what they're going to decide but may [00:29:00] 15th is the next date is the big date on our calendar. Annie Lee: Yeah. So the Trump administration is arguing that these judges in a particular district, it's not fair if they get to say that the entire country, is barred from receiving this executive order. Is that procedurally correct. Judges, in order to consider whether to grants an injunction, they have a whole battery of factors that they look at, including one, which is like likelihood of winning on the merits. Because if something is unconstitutional, it's not really great to say, yeah, you can let this executive order go through. And then like later when the court cases finally worked their way, like a year later, pull back from that. And so that's, it's very frustrating to see this argument. And it's also unfair and would be very messy if the states that had republican Attorneys General who did not litigate, why would you allow the executive order to go forward in those red states and not in these blue state? It really, I would say federalism run terribly amuck. Swati Rayasam: [00:30:00] You are tuned in to APEX Express on 94.1 KPFA, 89.3 KPFB in Berkeley,. 88.1. KFCF in Fresno and online@kpfa.org. Annie Lee: But anyway, let's see back off from the actual case because I think what we're really talking about and what Chris has alluded to is, these cases about birthright citizenship, all the immigration policy is essentially determining who belongs here. Who belongs here. That's what immigration policy is at its heart. And we see that the right wing is weaponizing that question, who belongs here? And they are going after very vulnerable populations, undocumented people, people who are formerly incarcerated. So Bun if you can talk about how, is the formerly incarcerated community, like targeted immigrants, targeted for deportation? What is going on with this community that I feel like most people might not know about? Thank [00:31:00] you. Bun: Yes. For our folks that are incarcerated and former incarcerated, we are the easiest target for deportation because we are in custody and in California, CDCR colludes with ICE and on the day that we are to be paroled they're at the door, cuffing us up and taking us to detention. I'm glad to hear Harvey say, this is a time of fear for us and also opportunity. Right now, our whole community, the Southeast Asian community, mainly are very effective with immigration. In the past 25 years, mostly it was the Cambodian community that was being targeted and deported. At this moment, they are targeting, all of the Southeast Asian community, which historically was never deported because of the politics and agreements, of the Vietnamese community. And now the Laos community thats more concerning, that are being targeted for deportation. Trump have opened a new opportunity for us as a community to join [00:32:00] together and understand each other's story, and understand each other's fear. Understand where we're going about immigration. From birthright to crimmagration. A lot of times folks that are under crimmigration are often not spoken about because of our cultural shame, within our own family and also some of our community member felt safe because the political agreements. Now that everybody's in danger, we could stand together and understand each other's issue and support each other because now we could see that history has repeated itself. Again, we are the scapegoat. We are here together fighting the same issue in different circumstances, but the same issue. Annie Lee: But let me follow up. What are these, historical agreements that you're talking about that used to feel like used to at least shield the community that now aren't in place anymore? Bun: Yeah. After the Clinton administration, uh, passed the IRA [immigration reform act] a lot of Southeast Asian nations were asked to [00:33:00] take their nationals back. Even though we as 1.5 generation, which are the one that's mostly impacted by this, had never even stepped into the country. Most of us were born in a refugee camp or we're too young to even remember where they came from. Countries like Cambodian folded right away because they needed the financial aid and whatever, was offering them and immediately a three with a MOU that they will take their citizens since the early two thousands. Vietnam had a stronger agreement, which, they would agree to only take folks that immigrated here after 1995 and anybody before 1995, they would not take, and Laos have just said no until just a few months ago. Laos has said no from when the, uh, the act was passed in 1995, the IRRIRA. Mm-hmm. So the big change we have now is Vietnam had signed a new MOU saying that they will take folks after 1995 [00:34:00] in the first administration and more recently, something that we never thought, happened so fast, was Laos agreeing to take their citizen back. And then the bigger issue about our Laos community is, it's not just Laos folks. It's the Hmong folks, the Myan folks, folks, folks that are still in danger of being returned back 'cause in the Vietnam War, they colluded and supported the Americans in the Vietnam War and were exiled out and kicked out, and were hunted down because of that. So, at this moment, our folks are very in fear, especially our loud folks, not knowing what's gonna happen to 'em. Ke Lam: So for folks that don't know what IRR means it means, illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. It actually happened after the Oklahoma bombing, which was caused by a US citizen, a white US citizen. Yeah. But immigration law came out of it. That's what's crazy about it. Annie Lee: Can you tell us, how is APSC advocating to protect the community right now because you [00:35:00] are vulnerable? Ke Lam: So we had to censor a lot of our strategies. At first we used to use social media as a platform to show our work and then to support our community. But the government use that as a target to capture our people. So we stopped using social media. So we've been doing a lot of on the ground movement, such as trying to get local officials to do resolutions to push Governor Newsom to party more of our community members. The other thing is we hold pardon workshops, so try and get folks to get, either get a pardon or vacate their sentence. So commute their sentence to where it become misdemeanor is not deportable anymore. Support letters for our folks writing support letters to send to the governor and also to city official, to say, Hey, please help pardon our community. I think the other thing we are actually doing is solidarity work with other organizations, African American community as well as Latin communities because we've been siloed for so long and we've been banned against each other, where people kept saying like, they've taken all our job when I grew up. That's what they told us, right? [00:36:00] But we, reality that's not even true. It was just a wedge against our community. And then so it became the good versus bad narrative. So our advocacy is trying to change it it's called re-storying you know, so retelling our story from people that are impacted, not from people, not from the one percenters in our own community. Let's say like we're all good, do you, are there's parts of our community that like that's the bad people, right? But in reality, it affects us all. And so advocacy work is a lot of different, it comes in a lot of different shapes and forms, but definitely it comes from the community. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. You teed me up perfectly because there is such a good versus bad immigrant narrative that takes root and is really hard to fight against. And that's why this administration is targeting incarcerated and formerly incarcerated folks and another group that, are being targeted as people who are accused of crimes, including Venezuelan immigrants who are allegedly part of a gang. So, Leti how is the government deporting [00:37:00] people by simply accusing them of being a part of a gang? Like how is that even possible? Leti Volpp: Yeah, so one thing to think about is there is this thing called due process, right? It's guaranteed under the constitution to all persons. It's not just guaranteed to citizens. What does it mean? Procedural due process means there should be notice, there should be a hearing, there should be an impartial judge. You should have the opportunity to present evidence. You should have the opportunity to cross examinee. You should have the opportunity to provide witnesses. Right? And basically Trump and his advisors are in real time actively trying to completely eviscerate due process for everybody, right? So Trump recently said, I'm doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our country. But the courts don't seem to want me to do that. We cannot give everyone a trial because to do so would take without exaggeration, 200 years. And then Stephen Miller said the judicial process is for Americans. [00:38:00] Immediate deportation is for illegal aliens. Okay. Quote unquote. Right. So I think one thing to notice is, as we're hearing from all of our speakers are like the boxes, the categories into which people are put. And what's really disturbing is to witness how once somebody's put in the box of being quote unquote criminal gang banger terrorists, like the American public seems to be like, oh, okay you can do what you want to this person. There's a whole history of due process, which exists in the laws which was created. And all of these early cases actually involved Asian immigrants, right? And so first they were saying there's no due process. And then in a case called Yata versus Fisher, they said actually there is due process in deportation cases, there's regular immigration court proceedings, which accord with all of these measures of due process. There's also a procedure called expedited removal, [00:39:00] which Congress invented in the nineties where they wanted to come up with some kind of very quick way to summarily exclude people. It was motivated by a 60 Minutes episode where they showed people coming to Kennedy Airport, who didn't have any ID or visa or they had what seemed to be fake visas and they were let into the United States. And then they disappeared, right? According to the 60 Minutes episode. So basically Congress invented this procedure of, if you appear in the United States and you have no documents, or you have what an immigration inspector thinks are false documents, they can basically tell you, you can leave without this court hearing. And the only fail safe is what's called a credible fear screening. Where if you say, I want asylum, I fear persecution, I'm worried I might be tortured, then they're supposed to have the screening. And if you pass that screening, you get put in regular removal [00:40:00] proceedings. So before the Trump administration took office, these expedited removal proceedings were happening within a hundred miles of the border against people who could not show that they had been in the United States for more than two weeks. In one of his first executive orders. Trump extended this anywhere in the United States against people who cannot show they've been in the United States for more than two years. So people are recommending that people who potentially are in this situation to carry documentation, showing they've been physically in the United States for over two years. Trump is also using this Alien Enemies Act, which was basically a law Congress passed in 1798. It's only been used three times in US history it's a wartime law, right? So it was used in 1812, World War I, and World War II, and there's supposed to be a declared war between the United States and a foreign nation or government, or [00:41:00] there's an incursion threatened by a foreign nation or government, and the president makes public proclamation that all natives of this hostile nation, 14 and up shall be liable to be restrained and removed as alien enemies. Okay? So we're obviously not at war with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, right? They have not engaged in some kind of invasion or predatory incursion into the United States, but the Trump administration is claiming that they have and saying things like, oh, they're secretly a paramilitary wing of the Venezuelan government, even as the Venezuelan government is like cracking down on them. It's not a quasi sovereign, entity. There's no diplomatic relationships between Tren de Aragua and any other government. So these are legally and factually baseless arguments. Nonetheless, the administration has been basically taking people from Venezuela on the basis of tattoos. A tattoo of a crown of a [00:42:00] rose, right? Even when experts have said there's no relationship between what Tren de Aragua does and tattoos, right? And basically just kidnapping people and shipping them to the torture prison in El Salvador. As I'm sure you know of the case of Kimber Abrego Garcia, I'm sure we'll hear more about this from Christopher. There's a very small fraction of the persons that have been sent to this prison in El Salvador who actually have any criminal history. And I will say, even if they had a criminal history, nobody should be treated in this manner and sent to this prison, right? I mean, it's unbelievable that they've been sent to this prison allegedly indefinitely. They're paying $6 million a year to hold people there. And then the United States government is saying, oh, we don't have any power to facilitate or effectuate their return. And I think there's a struggle as to what to call this. It's not just deportation. This is like kidnapping. It's rendition. And there are people, there's like a particular person like who's completely [00:43:00] disappeared. Nobody knows if they're alive or dead. There are many people in that prison. People don't know if they're alive or dead. And I'm sure you've heard the stories of people who are gay asylum seekers, right? Who are now in this situation. There are also people that have been sent to Guantanamo, people were sent to Panama, right? And so I think there questions for us to think about like, what is this administration doing? How are they trying to do this in a spectacular fashion to instill fear? As we know as well, Trump had said oh, like I think it would be great when he met with Bukele if you build four more or five more facilities. I wanna house homegrown people in El Salvador, right? So this is all the more importance that we stick together, fight together, don't, as key was saying, don't let ourselves be split apart. Like we need a big mass coalition right? Of people working together on this. Annie Lee: So thank you leti and I think you're absolutely right. These Venezuelans were kidnapped [00:44:00] in the middle of the night. I mean, 2:00 AM 3:00 AM pulled out of bed, forced to sign documents they did not understand because these documents were only available in English and they speak Spanish, put on planes sent to El Salvador, a country they've never been to. The government didn't even have to prove anything. They did not have to prove anything, and they just snatch these people and now they're disappeared. We do have, for now the rule of law. And so Chris, there are judges saying that, Kimber Abrego Garcia has to be returned. And despite these court orders, the administration is not complying. So where does that leave us, Chris, in terms of rule of law and law in general? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. So, I'm gonna make a little personal. So I graduated from Yale Law School in 2013, and you might know some of my classmates. One of my classmates is actually now the Vice President of the United States. Oh man. [00:45:00] Bless you. As well as the second lady, Usha Vance. And a classmate of mine, a good friend Sophia Nelson, who's a trans and queer, was recently on, I believe CNN answering a question about, I believe JD Vice President Vance, was asked about the administration's sort of refusal to comply with usual orders. Yeah. As we're talking about here and JD had said something like, well, courts, judges can't tell the president what he can't do, and sophia, to their credit, said, you know, I took constitutional law with JD, and, we definitely read Marbury Versus Madison together, and that is the semial sort of Supreme Court case that established that the US Supreme Court is the ultimate decider, arbiter, interpreter, of the US Constitution. And so is basically saying, I know JD knows better. He's lying essentially, in all of his [00:46:00] communications about, judicial orders and whether or not a presidential administration has to comply , with these orders. So, to get to your question though, it is of course unprecedented. Really. It is essentially, you know, it's not, if we not already reached. The point of a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional crisis. I think it's become clear to many of us that, democracy in the US has operated in large part, and has relied on, on, on the good faith in norms, that people are operating good faith and that presidents will comply when, a federal judge issues an injunction or a decision. It kind of leaves us in an interesting, unprecedented situation. And it means that, lawyers, we will continue to litigate and, go to court, but we can't, lawyers will not save the country or, immigrants or communities. We need to think extensively and creatively. [00:47:00] About how to ensure, that the rule of law is preserved because, this administration is not, abiding by the longstanding norms of compliance and so we have to think about, protests, advocacy, legislatively. I don't have the answers necessarily, but we can't rely on the courts to fix these problems really. Annie Lee: Oof. That was very real, Chris. Thank you. But I will say that when there is resistance, and we've seen it from students who are speaking up and advocating for what they believe is right and just including Palestinian Liberation, that there is swift retaliation. And I think that's partly because they are scared of student speech and movement and organizing. But this is a question to all of you. So if not the courts and if the administration is being incredibly retaliatory, and discriminatory in terms of viewpoint discrimination, in people and what people are saying and they're scouring our social [00:48:00] media like, Ke warns, like what can everyday people do to fight back? That's for all of you. So I don't know who, which of you wants to take it first? Ke Lam: Oh man. I say look at history, right? Even while this new president, I wanna say like, this dude is a convicted felon, right? Don't be surprised at why we country is in the way it is, because this dude's a convicted felon, a bad business person, right? And only care about the billionaires, you know? So I'm not surprised how this country's ending up the way it is 'cause it is all about money. One way that we can stand up is definitely band together, marched on the streets. It's been effective. You look at the civil right movement, that's the greatest example. Now you don't have to look too far. We can actually, when we come together, they can't fight us all. Right? It is, and this, it's like you look at even nature in the cell. When things band together, the predators cannot attack everyone. Right? They probably could hit a few of us, but in the [00:49:00] long run, we could change the law. I think another thing is we, we, as the people can march to the courts and push the courts to do the job right, despite what's going on., We had judges that been arrested for doing the right thing, right? And so, no matter what, we have to stand strong just despite the pressure and just push back. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. Chris? Christopher Lapinig: What this administration is doing is you know, straight out of the fascist playbook. They're working to, as we all know, shock and awe everyone, and make Americans feel powerless. Make them feel like they have no control, make them feel overwhelmed. And so I think first and foremost, take care of yourself , in terms of your health, in terms of your physical health, your mental health. Do what you can to keep yourself safe and healthy and happy. And do the same for your community, for your loved ones, your friends and family. And then once you've done that do what you can in terms of your time, treasure, [00:50:00] talent to, to fight back. Everyone has different talents, different levels of time that they can afford. But recognize that this is a marathon and not necessarily a sprint because we need everyone, in this resistance that we can get. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Leti Volpp: There was a New Yorker article called, I think it was How to Be a Dissident which said, before recently many Americans, when you ask them about dissidents, they would think of far off countries. But they interviewed a lot of people who'd been dissidents in authoritarian regimes. And there were two, two things in that article that I'm taking with me among others. One of them said that in surveying like how authoritarian regimes are broken apart, like only 3.5% of the population has to oppose what's going on. The other thing was that you should find yourself a political home where you can return to frequently. It's almost like a religious or [00:51:00] spiritual practice where you go and you get refreshed and you're with like-minded people. And so I see this event, for example as doing that, and that we all need to find and nurture and foster spaces like this. Thank you. Annie Lee: Bun, do you have any parting words? Bun: Yeah. Like Ke said, to fight back, getting together, understanding issues and really uplifting, supporting, urging our own communities, to speak Up. You know, there's folks that can't speak out right now because of fear and danger, but there are folks here that can speak out and coming here learning all our situation really give the knowledge and the power to speak out for folks that can't speak down [unclear] right now. So I appreciate y'all Annie Lee: love that bun. I was gonna say the same thing. I feel like there is a special obligation for those of us who are citizens, citizens cannot be deported. Okay? Citizens have special rights based [00:52:00] on that status. And so there's a special responsibility on those of us who can speak, and not be afraid of retaliation from this government. I would also urge you all even though it's bleak at the federal level, we have state governments, we have local governments. You have a university here who is very powerful. And you have seen, we've seen that the uni that the administration backs down, sometimes when Harvard hit back, they back down and that means that there is a way to push the administration, but it does require you all putting pressure on your schools, on your local leaders, on your state leaders to fight back. My boss actually, Vin taught me this. You know, you think that politicians, lead, politicians do not lead politicians follow. Politicians follow and you all lead when you go out further, you give them cover to do the right thing. And so the farther you push and the more you speak out against this administration, the more you give them courage to do the right thing. And so you absolutely have to do that. A pardon [00:53:00] is critical. It is critical for people who are formerly incarcerated to avoid the immigration system and deportation. And so do that. Talk to your family, talk to your friends. My parents, despite being immigrants, they're kinda old school. Okay guys, they're like, you know, birthright citizenship does seem kind of like a loophole. Why should people like get like citizenship? I'm like, mom, we, I am a birthright citizen. Like, um, And I think for Asian Americans in particular, there is such a rich history of Asian American civil rights activism that we don't talk about enough, and maybe you do at Berkeley with ethnic studies and professors like Mike Chang. But, this is totally an interracial solidarity movement. We helped bring about Wong Kim Ark and there are beneficiaries of every shade of person. There's Yik wo, and I think about this all the time, which is another part of the 14th Amendment equal protection. Which black Americans fought for that in San Francisco. [00:54:00] Chinatown made real what? What does equal protection of the laws even mean? And that case was Seminole. You've got Lao versus Nichols. Another case coming out of San Francisco. Chinatown about English learner rights, the greatest beneficiary of Lao v Nichols, our Spanish speakers, they're Spanish speaking children in schools who get access to their education regardless of the language they speak. And so there are so many moments in Asian American history that we should be talking about, that we should educate our parents and our families about, because this is our moment. Now, this is another one of those times I wanna pass it to Mike and Harvey for questions, and I'm so excited to hear about them. Mike and Harvey: Wow, thank you so much. That's a amazing, panel and thank you for facilitating annie's wanna give it of a great value in terms of that spiritual home aspect. Norm how does your great grandfather's , experience in resistance, provide help for us [00:55:00] today? Norman Wong: Well, I think he was willing to do it. It only took one, if no one did it, this, we wouldn't be having the discussion because most of us would've never been here. And we need to come together on our common interests and put aside our differences because we all have differences. And if we tried, to have it our way for everything, we'll have it no way for us. We really need to, to bond and bind together and become strong as a people. And I don't mean as a racial or a national group. Mm-hmm. I mean, we're Americans now. We're Americans here think of us as joining with all Americans to make this country the way it's supposed to be. The way [00:56:00] we grew up, the one that we remember, this is not the America I grew up believing in. I'm glad he stood up. I'm proud that he did that. He did that. Him doing that gave me something that I've never had before. A validation of my own life. And so yes, I'm proud of him. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. It's not for me to own. Yeah. Wow. Really not. Thank you so much. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. And, and , talking about the good , that we have here and, the optimism that Harvey spoke about, the opportunity, even in a moment of substantial danger. Thank you so much everybody. Mike and Harvey: This was amazing and really appreciate sharing this space with you and, building community and solidarity. Ke Lam: But is there any, can I leave with a chant before we close off? Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much. So this is a chant that we use on the ground all the time. You guys probably heard it. When I said when we fight, you guys said we [00:57:00] win when we fight. We win when we fight, we win. When we fight, we win up. Swati Rayasam: Thanks so much for tuning into APEX Express. Please check out our website at kpfa.org/program/apexexpress to find out more about the show tonight and to find out how you can take direct action. We thank all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating, and sharing your visions with the world. Your voices are important. APEX Express is produced by Miko Lee, along with Jalena Keene-Lee, Ayame Keene-Lee, Preeti Mangala Shekar, Anuj Vaida, Cheryl Truong, Isabel Li, Ravi Grover, and me Swati Rayasam. Thank you so much to the team at KPFA for their support, and have a good [00:58:00] night.   The post APEX Express – 6.26.25-Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us appeared first on KPFA.

On January 20th, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14160, limiting birthright citizenship. This was met with backlash, as the constitutionality of the order was questioned. On May 15, 2025 SCOTUS heard oral arguments regarding a challenge to the order and a decision is expected to be released by late June or early July 2025. The courts have temporarily blocked the implementation of the Executive Order while constitutional challenges proceed. In this episode, Craig is joined by David C. Baluarte, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and a Professor of Law at CUNY School of Law. Together, Craig and Dean Balaurte discuss Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship, recent oral arguments before SCOTUS, the constitutional fight for birthright citizenship, and the potential impact of this upcoming decision. Mentioned in this Episode: United States v. Wong Kim Ark

In this riveting episode of the Cross Examiner podcast, our host returns with renewed vigor to tackle the pressing issues of today, drawing parallels between the past and present. With a focus on the classic film Blazing Saddles, we explore the historical context of racism in America, particularly against Chinese immigrants during the late 1800s. As we dissect the rise of Christian nationalism and the misinformation fueling it, our host emphasizes the importance of education and critical thinking in combating ignorance. Join us for a thought-provoking journey that connects history to contemporary issues and advocates for a more informed society.Chapters:(00:00) Cross Examiner is the Internet's courtroom in the case of rationality versus religion(00:40) Cross Examiner is alarmed by the rise of Christian nationalism(01:31) Rachel Maddow: Blazing Saddles is one of the smartest films on racism(09:20) To hold people's attentions. Especially since the rise of Trumpism in America(10:44) The story of Chinese immigrants in America begins in the 1800s(16:44) Grant Wasinsky: Congress made Chinese exclusion permanent in 1902(21:19) What did the Chinese Americans do in response to this?(24:25) Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1870(29:54) The Supreme Court hears oral arguments today over the immigration executive order(36:24) A federal judge can issue a nationwide injunction on immigration cases(40:16) This case is going to affect 14 different executive orders(47:07) There will be a liberal executive who uses the same tactics that Trump taught(49:20) Cross examiner podcast returns with first episode since presidential electionBlazing Saddleshttps://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071230/Chinese Exclusion Acthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_ActWong Kim Arkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Kim_ArkAtheist Community of Austinhttps://www.atheist-community.org/American Civil Liberties Unionhttps://www.aclu.org/Freedom From Religion Foundationhttps://ffrf.org/

Earlier this year, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. He has placed this issue at the forefront of his immigration agenda and it is now being taken up by the Supreme Court. To have this conversation, we've brought together a constitutional law scholar and a political commentator.Cristina Rodríguez is the Leighton Homer Surbeck Professor of Law at Yale Law School. In 2021, she was appointed by President Biden to co-chair the Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. Her recent book is called The President and Immigration Law. She's also the co-host of the new podcast: Unsettled: Immigration in Turbulent Times.Rod D. Martin writes The Rod Martin Report on Substack. He is also the Founder and CEO of Martin Capital. As a tech entrepreneur and venture capitalist, Rod was previously an advisor to Peter Thiel. Rod also served as policy director to Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas.We talk a lot about the 14th Amendment in this episode. It was ratified in 1868 to give formerly enslaved people the right to vote. Here's what it says: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Keep that phrase in mind. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It'll come up a lot.Our guests also discuss the Supreme Court cases Elk v Wilkins, Slaughterhouse, and Wong Kim Ark. All you need to know for this episode is: those rulings influenced the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Last note, this episode is moderated by co-host and co-founder, Catherine Cushenberry. Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Norman Wong didn't know his family's history for most of his life. Now, the 75-year-old retired carpenter is fighting to save birthright citizenship and his great-grandfather's legacy.His great-grandfather was Wong Kim Ark, a cook born to Chinese immigrants in San Francisco in 1870. After visiting family in China, Wong Kim Ark was denied reentry into the United States. The ensuing court battle made it up to the U.S. Supreme Court and enshrined the right to citizenship for almost any child born on U.S. soil, regardless of where their parents came from. More than a century later, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to limit birthright citizenship. On Thursday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments about the legal battle over the order. Norman Wong hopes that sharing his family story can influence that fight. Today's episode was produced by Laura Benshoff, with help from Emma Talkoff. It was edited by Maggie Penman and mixed by Sean Carter. If you want to learn more about Wong Kim Ark and the landmark Supreme Court case that affirmed birthright citizenship, check out our podcast “Constitutional.” Subscribe to The Washington Post here.

Send us a textJoin Boozy and a panel of folks, including Draggor and Iggy as well as a sock puppet pretending to be Alkali, for an episode of Boozy's Legal Funhouse recorded live at AnthrOhio 2025 in Columbus, Ohio.  With Alkali off in Vegas, Boozy reached into the bag of "let's get political" to discuss the concept of birthright citizenship and how the Supreme Court has held for over a century that the only actually constitutionally protected form of citizenship is the one you gain from being born in a place with a discussion of the legal case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark.Special thanks to the sound techs  at AO who recorded this one from the board and gave us sound quality you can expect to never actually hear again.Case materials are available for free on the Patreon HERE.Legal Funhouse Theme by Status Ferret. Check out his stuff here!Support the showSupport Boozy and the show over on Patreon, Kofi, or maybe watch him at Twitch. You can read his writings and get updates about performances, releases, bonus material, and case materials at Lawyers & Liquor, his website. If you want to support Alkali, you can do that at his Twitch channel or on their Patreon!

This Day in Legal History:  Wong Kim Ark becomes Wong Kim ArkOn March 28, 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, affirming that a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese nationals who were legally residing in the U.S. but ineligible for naturalization due to prevailing immigration laws. After a visit to China in 1895, he was denied re-entry on the grounds of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which severely restricted immigration from China and barred Chinese nationals from becoming citizens.The Court rejected the government's argument that children of Chinese immigrants were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and thus not entitled to birthright citizenship. In a 6–2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of the nationality or immigration status of their parents. This decision established a major precedent for interpreting the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and reinforced the principle of jus soli, or right of the soil.The ruling came during a period of intense anti-Chinese sentiment, when the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and its extensions aimed to restrict Chinese immigration and civil rights. Wong Kim Ark was a significant rebuke to efforts that sought to limit the constitutional rights of U.S.-born children of immigrants, and it laid the foundation for future interpretations of birthright citizenship.The Senate's vote to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's $5 cap on overdraft fees is a clear signal: protecting bank profits matters more to Senate Republicans than shielding consumers from predatory financial practices. With a 52-48 vote, Republicans—joined by only one Democrat—moved to dismantle a regulation designed to curb exploitative overdraft charges that routinely hit working-class Americans the hardest.This isn't a technical policy disagreement—it's a choice to side with an industry that routinely charges Americans up to $35 for covering small shortfalls, even when the overdrafted amount is often less than the fee itself. The CFPB's rule was narrow, targeting only large banks and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets, and still allowed higher fees if justified by actual costs. It was a modest, evidence-based consumer protection measure.The financial industry's immediate lawsuit and the GOP's use of the Congressional Review Act to kill the rule reveal the coordinated effort to preserve a lucrative revenue stream. The overdraft fee fight is just one piece of a broader Republican strategy to roll back protections the CFPB has implemented—protections meant to hold powerful financial institutions accountable.No one should mistake this vote as anything other than what it is: an effort by Senate Republicans to keep consumers on the hook, ensuring that banks and credit unions can continue bleeding them dry in the name of "choice" and "flexibility"—buzzwords that conveniently mask an enduring deference to corporate power. They'll couch these kinds of moves in language of fairness–pretending they ensure lower-income consumers are given access to these financial instruments. A moment's reflection, however, makes it clear that even under their best dressed reasoning they're looking to enable banks to charge exorbitant fees to account holders in precarity. Senate Votes to Repeal CFPB's $5 Cap on Bank Overdraft Fees (1)Yesterday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order against the prominent law firm WilmerHale, following its connections to Robert Mueller, the former special counsel who led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The order directs federal agencies to cancel contracts with WilmerHale's clients, revoke lawyers' security clearances, and restrict access to U.S. government buildings. This is part of a broader strategy targeting law firms with ties to Mueller's investigation, including Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, and Jenner & Block.Trump criticized Mueller's investigation as an example of government overreach, labeling it as politically motivated. In addition to its ties to Mueller, Trump also accused WilmerHale of discriminatory practices in its diversity programs, echoing similar claims against other law firms earlier this month. The firm, which has a long-standing history of handling high-profile cases, responded by labeling the order unlawful and vowed to seek appropriate remedies.WilmerHale, a major player in litigation with over 1,100 lawyers, represents a variety of high-profile clients, including Gilead, Comcast, and Meta Platforms. The firm has also been involved in cases challenging actions taken by the Trump administration, fueling further tensions. Notably, Trump also targeted other firms for their involvement in the Russia investigation and opposition research, but some, like Paul Weiss, have managed to have orders rescinded by agreeing to specific terms, including providing legal services aligned with Trump's agenda.Trump Hits WilmerHale With Executive Order Over Mueller Ties (2)Trump targets another law firm, citing ties to Robert Mueller | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a Labor Department rule that would force grant recipients to abandon their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly in Chicago, halts a two-week enforcement window of a January executive order that required organizations receiving federal funds to certify they don't operate any DEI initiatives—even those unrelated to their grants.The case was brought by Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT), a nonprofit that trains women for skilled labor jobs and receives federal funding. The judge sided with CWIT's argument that the DEI restriction violates First Amendment protections, noting that such a rule could pressure grantees into self-censorship. Kennelly also blocked the Labor Department from terminating CWIT's funding under Trump's directive to eliminate “equity-related grants,” though this protection applies only to CWIT and not nationwide.Kennelly's order represents a legal pushback against Trump's broader effort to dismantle DEI initiatives across government agencies and contractors. While a federal appeals court recently upheld a temporary ban on DEI programs in federal agencies and contracting businesses, this ruling suggests courts may scrutinize how far the administration can go in policing DEI-related activity outside direct federal oversight.The ruling underscores an emerging legal battleground over free speech, anti-discrimination law, and the limits of executive authority in regulating DEI efforts.Judge blocks Trump's Labor Department from requiring grant recipients to abandon DEI | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to preserve Signal messages exchanged by top officials regarding planned military strikes in Yemen. The messages, inadvertently shared with a journalist from The Atlantic, revealed internal discussions involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe about timing and targets of attacks against the Houthi militant group. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's ruling mandates that all Signal messages sent between March 11 and March 15 be retained by the agencies involved.The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by American Oversight, a government watchdog group, which argued that the use of auto-deleting messaging apps like Signal violated federal record-keeping laws. The lawsuit doesn't focus on the national security aspects of the disclosure but rather on the legal obligation of government agencies to preserve official communications.The controversy deepened after Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly criticized Boasberg, accusing him of political bias and claiming he was attempting to obstruct Trump's agenda. Trump himself has previously called for Boasberg's impeachment after the judge blocked a deportation policy targeting Venezuelan migrants—an action later upheld by an appeals court.The White House has not commented on the matter, but the episode has sparked scrutiny over the administration's handling of sensitive military planning and whether efforts to bypass official communication channels undermine transparency and accountability.Judge orders Trump administration to preserve Yemen attack plan messages | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Sergei Rachmaninoff.This week's closing theme is one of the most beloved and instantly recognizable moments in all of classical music: Variation XVIII from Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Op. 43 by Sergei Rachmaninoff, in a solo piano arrangement by Schultz. Rachmaninoff composed the Rhapsody in 1934 during his later years in exile from Russia, blending his romantic sensibilities with virtuoso brilliance. The work is a set of 24 variations on the 24th Caprice by Niccolò Paganini, itself a legendary theme known for dazzling technical demands.While most of the piece is fiery and rhythmic, the 18th variation stands apart—lyrical, sweeping, and emotionally expansive. In fact, it's a musical inversion of Paganini's theme, reimagined as a lush romantic melody that seems to rise straight out of the piano's depths. Rachmaninoff himself admitted it was his favorite part of the piece, and it's easy to understand why: it's tender, grand, and full of longing.This solo arrangement by Schultz pares down the orchestral drama but keeps all the expressive power, letting the piano sing with full-hearted warmth. The variation has since transcended its classical origins, appearing in films, commercials, and pop culture, yet it never loses its emotional punch. It's the kind of music that doesn't need explanation—it just resonates.Rachmaninoff, ever the late Romantic in a century veering toward modernism, poured his soul into his music. This variation, placed deep in a virtuosic whirlwind, emerges like a moment of clarity—an unguarded confession in a storm. Let it carry you out this week. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

After the Civil War, it took a century of protests, boycotts, demonstrations, and legal challenges to end the Jim Crow system of segregation and legal discrimination. Learn about the brave men, women, and children that risked their personal safety, and sometimes their lives, in the quest for Black Americans to achieve equal rights.

  A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Grace Lee Boggs said, “History is not the past. It is the stories we tell about the past. How we tell these stories – triumphantly or self-critically, metaphysically or dialectally – has a lot to do with whether we cut short or advance our evolution as human beings.” In our current chaotic time, it feels like we are intentionally ignoring history. Our lack of awareness feels like a de-evolution, as our education department is gutting, books are banned, and so many American institutions are at risk, it feels as though a critical analysis of history is being ignored.  On Tonight's APEX Express, Host Miko Lee focuses on Wong Kim Ark and the importance of Birthright Citizenship. She speaks with historian David Lei, Reverend Deb Lee and lawyer/educator Annie Lee and activist Nick Gee. Discussed by Our Guests: What You Can Do To Protect Birthright Citizenship Our history is tied to the legacy of Wong Kim Ark and birthright citizenship, and it will take ongoing advocacy to protect this fundamental right. Here are four ways you can stay involved in the work ahead: Invite a friend to attend an event as part of Chinese for Affirmative Action's weeklong series commemorating Wong Kim Ark. Take action and oppose Trump's executive order banning birthright citizenship. Learn about Wong Kim Ark and Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. Sign up to join Stop AAPI Hate's Many Roots, One Home campaign to fight back against Trump's anti-immigrant agenda.   How you can get engaged to protect immigrants: https://www.im4humanintegrity.org/ https://www.bayresistance.org/ Bay Area Immigration: 24 Hour Hotlines San Francisco 415-200-1548 Alameda County 510-241-4011 Santa Clara County 408-290-1144 Marin County 415-991-4545 San Mateo County 203-666-4472   Know Your Rights (in various Asian languages) Thank you to our guests and Chinese for Affirmative Action for the clip from Wong Kim Ark's great grandson Norman Wong   Show Transcript: Wong Kim Ark Opening: [00:00:00] Apex Express Asian Pacific expression. Community and cultural coverage, music and calendar, new visions and voices, coming to you with an Asian Pacific Islander point of view. It's time to get on board the Apex Express.   Miko Lee: [00:00:35] Grace Lee Boggs said history is not the past. It is the stories we tell about the past, how we tell these stories. Triumphantly or self critically metaphysically or dialectically, has a lot to do with whether we cut short or advance our evolution as human beings. I. Well, in our current chaotic times, it feels like we are intentionally ignoring history. Our lack of awareness feels like a de-evolution. As our education department is gutted and books are banned, and so many of our American institutions are at risks, it feels as though a critical analysis of history is just being intentionally ignored. So welcome to Apex Express. I'm your host, Miko Lee, and tonight we're gonna delve back into a moment of history that is very much relevant in our contemporary world. Tonight's show is about long Kim Ark. There's a famous black and white photo of a Chinese American man. His hair is pulled back with a large forehead on display, wide open eyes with eyebrows slightly raised, looking at the camera with an air of confidence and innocence. He is wearing a simple mandarin collared shirt, one frog button straining at his neck, and then two more near his right shoulder. The date stamp is November 15th, 1894. His name is Wong Kim Ark. Tonight we hear more about his story, why it is important, what birthright citizenship means, and what you could do to get involved. So stay tuned. Welcome, David Lei, former social worker, community activist, lifelong San Franciscan, and amazing community storyteller. Welcome to Apex Express.    David Lei: [00:02:21] Thank you, Miko.    Miko Lee: [00:02:23] Can you first start with a personal question and tell me who are your people and what legacy do you carry with you?    David Lei: [00:02:31] I'm now on the board of Chinese Historical Society of America. Chinese American History is pretty important to me for my identity and the story of Chinese in America is American history, and that's where I'm at now.   Miko Lee: [00:02:50] And what legacy do you carry with you from your ancestors?    David Lei: [00:02:56] To pass on the wisdom they pass to me to future descendants. But I'm here in America, so I know after a few generations, my descendants won't look like me. Most likely they won't speak Chinese. They're going to be Americans. So. The lessons and values and wisdoms, my ancestors passed to me, I'm passing to America.   Miko Lee: [00:03:30] we are talking on this episode about Wong Kim Ark and as a community storyteller, I wonder if you can take me back to that time, take me back to Wong Kim Ark growing up in San Francisco, Chinatown, what was happening in San Francisco, Chinatown at that time    David Lei: [00:03:48] Okay, this is the end of the 19th century and we have the Exclusion Act in 1882 where Chinese were excluded from coming to America with few exceptions like merchants, diplomats, and scholars. So if you're Chinese and you're a laborer you just can't come. And there were concerns about. Going, even if you were here, there's a process for your return, the documents you will need. But even that was iffy. But for Chinese in general, there was birthright citizenship. So if you were born here, you have citizenship and that because of the 14th amendment. So many Chinese thought birthright citizenship was important 'cause you can vote, you have more rights, less chance that you will be deported. So the Chinese, born in America, right at 1895, formed a Chinese American Citizens Alliance. The concept of being a American citizen was in everybody's mind in Chinatown at that time. The Chinese been fighting for this birthright citizenship ever since the Exclusion Act. Before Wong Kim Ark, there was Look Tin Sing in the matter regarding Look Tin Sing was a CA federal Court of Appeal case. Look Tin Sing was born in Mendocino, so he's American born. He assumed he was a citizen. His parents sent him back to China before the Exclusion Act, and when he came back after the Exclusion Act, of course he didn't have the paperwork that were required , but he was born here. So to prove that he was a citizen. He had to have a lawyer and had to have white witness, and it went to the federal Court of Appeal, ninth Circuit, and the Chinese sixth company. The City Hall for Chinatown knew this was important for all Chinese, so gave him a lawyer, Thomas Den, and he won the case. Then in 1888, this happened again with a guy named Hong Yin Ming. He was held and he had to go to the Federal Court of Appeal to win again, then Wong Kim Ark 1895. He was stopped and. This time, the Chinese six company, which is a city hall for Chinatown they really went all out. They hired two of the best lawyers money could buy. The former deputy Attorney General for the United States, one of which was the co-founder of the American Bar Association. So these were very expensive, influential lawyers. And because Wong Kim Ark was a young man under 25, he was a cook, so he was poor, but the community backed him. And went to the Supreme Court and won because it was a Supreme Court case. It took precedent over the two prior cases that only went to the Court of Appeal.    Now you might think, here's a guy who has a Supreme Court case that says he's an American citizen. Well, a few years later in 1901, Wong Kim Ark went to Mexico to Juarez. When he came back to El Paso the immigration stopped him at El Paso and says, no you are just a cook. you're not allowed to come in because we have the 1882 Exclusion Act. Wong Kim Ark Says, I have a Supreme Court case saying I'm a US citizen, and the El Paso newspaper also had an article that very week saying they're holding a US citizen who has a Supreme Court case in his favor saying that he is a US citizen. However, immigration still held him for four months in El Paso. I think just to hassle. To make it difficult. Then by 1910, Wong Kim Ark had a few sons in China that he wants to bring to the us so he arranged for his first son to come to America in 1910. His first son was held at Angel Island. Interrogated did not pass, so they deported his firstborn son. So he says, wow, this is my real son, and he can't even get in. So this is dealing with immigration and the US laws and the racist laws is unending. Just because you win the Supreme Court case, that doesn't mean you're safe as we are seeing now. So it takes the community, takes a lot of effort. It takes money to hire the best lawyers. It takes strategizing. It takes someone to go to jail, habeas corpus case oftentimes to test the laws. And even when you win, it's not forever. It's constantly challenged. So I think that's the message in the community. Chinese community had push back on this and have pushed for Birthright citizenship from the very beginning of the Exclusion Act.    Miko Lee: [00:09:48] Thank you so much for that. David. Can we go back a little bit and explain for our audience what the Six Companies meant to Chinatown?    David Lei: [00:09:57] From the very beginning, there were a lot of laws racist laws that were anti-Chinese, and the Chinese always felt they needed representation. Many of the Chinese did not speak English, did not understand the laws, so they formed the Chinese Six Companies. Officially known as the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association. most Chinese come from just the six districts from Guangdong Province. They're like counties. However, in China, each counties most likely will have their own dialect. Unintelligible to the county next to them. They will have their own food ways, their own temples. almost like separate countries. So there were six major counties where the Chinese in America came from. So each county sent representatives to this central organization called the Chinese six companies, and they represented the Chinese in America initially in all of America. Then later on, different states set up their own Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, so they would tax their own membership or get their own membership to pay fees. They had in-house lawyers to negotiate with city government, state government, federal government, and they would raise the money. They were the GoFundMe of their days. Almost every month they were hiring lawyers to protect some Chinese, somewhere in America against unfair unjust laws. The Chinese six company was very important to the Chinese in America, and they were the first to really push back on the Chinese exclusion Act between 1882 and 1905. 105,000 Chinese in America after the exclusion Act sued a federal government more than 10,000 times. This is about 10% of the Chinese population in America, sued the federal government. I'm not including state government, counties nor municipalities. This is just the federal government. About 10% of the Chinese here sued and almost 30 of these went to the Federal Supreme Court, and it was the sixth company that organized many of these winning for all Americans and not just the Chinese right. To a public education. Even if you are an immigrant tape versus Hurley in 1885. Then we have the Yick Wo versus Hopkins case that gave equal protection under law for everyone. Now, the 14th Amendment does have this clause equal protection under law, but everybody thought that meant you had to write a law that was equal for everybody. But in the case of Yick Wo versus Hopkins, it was also important that the law is executed and administered equally for everyone. That's the first time where it was made very clear that equal protection under law also means the administration and the execution of the law. So that is the core of American Civil Rights and the Chinese won this case for all Americans. Of course, Wong Kim Ark.    The concept of political asylum, public law 29 was a Chinese case passed by Congress in 1921, and then we have Miranda Act. If you look into the Miranda Act, it was based on a Chinese case, 1924 Ziang Sun Wan versus the US two Chinese were accused of murder in Washington DC They were tortured, denied sleep. Denied food, denied attorneys, so they confessed. But when it came to trial. They said we didn't do it, we confessed 'cause we were tortured and they won in the Supreme Court, but it was a Washington DC case only applicable to federal jurisdictions. So when Miranda came up, the Supreme Court said, well, we decided this in 1924, but now we'll just make it applicable to state, county and municipality. And then of course, as recently as 1974 Chinese for affirmative action helped bring the Lao versus Nichols case. Where now is required to have bilingual education for immigrant students, if there are enough of them to form a class where they can be taught math, science, history in their original language. These and many more. The Chinese brought and won these cases for all Americans, but few people know this and we just don't talk about it.    Miko Lee: [00:15:35] David, thank you so much for dropping all this knowledge on us. I did not know that the Miranda rights comes from Asian Americans. That's powerful. Yes. And so many other cases. I'm wondering, you said that Chinese Americans and the six companies sued, did you say 10,000 times?    David Lei: [00:15:53] We have 10,000 individual cases. In many of these cases, the Chinese six company helped provide a lawyer or a vice.    Miko Lee: [00:16:03] And where did that come from? Where did that impetus, how did utilizing the legal system become so imbued in their organizing process?   David Lei: [00:16:14] Well, because it worked even with the exclusion act, during the exclusion period most Chinese. Got a lawyer to represent them, got in something like 80%. In many of the years, 80% of the Chinese that hire a lawyer to help them with the immigration process were omitted. So the Chinese knew the courts acted differently from politics. The Chinese did not have a vote. So had no power in the executive branch nor the legislative branch. But they knew if they hire good lawyers, they have power in the court. So regardless of whether their fellow Americans like them or not legally the Chinese had certain rights, and they made sure they received those rights. By organizing, hiring the best lawyers, and this was a strategy. suing slowed down after 1905 because the Chinese lost a important case called Ju Toy versus the us. The Supreme Court decided that since the Chinese sue so much, their courts of appeal were tied up with all these cases. So the Supreme Court says from now on, the Supreme Court will give up his rights to oversight on the executive branch when it comes to immigration because the Chinese sue too much. And that's why today the executive branch. Has so much power when it comes to immigration, cause the court gave up the oversight rights in this ju toy versus the US in 1905. So if we go to the history of the law a lot of the legal policies we live in today, were. Pushback and push for by the Chinese, because the Chinese were the first group that were excluded denied these rights. but the Chinese were very organized one of the most organized group and push back. And that's why we have all these laws that the Chinese won.    Miko Lee: [00:18:30] And in your deep knowledge of all this history of these many cases, what do you think about what is happening right now with all the conversations around birthright citizenship? Can you put that into a historical perspective?    David Lei: [00:18:44] So being an American. We always have to be on the guard for our rights. Who would've thought Roe v. Wade would be overturned? So all these things can be challenged. America's attitude change. Civil disobedience, the Chinese are actually, we have on record the largest number of people practicing civil disobedience over a long period of time. In 1892, when the Exclusion Act, Chinese Exclusion Act had to be renewed, they added this. New requirement that every Chinese must carry a certificate of residency with their photo on it. Well, this is like a internal passport. No one had to have this internal passport, but they made the Chinese do it. So the Chinese six company. Says, no, this is not right. Only dogs need to carry a license around to identify. Itself and only criminals needs to register with a state. And we Chinese are not dogs and we're not criminals, so we're not going to do it 'cause no one else needs to do it. So the six company told all the Chinese 105,000 Chinese not to register. 97% refuse to register. In the meantime, the six companies sued the federal government again. Saying the Federal Go government cannot do this. The Chinese lost this case in the Supreme Court and everybody then had to register, but they didn't register until two years later, 1894. So they held. Held out for two years.   Miko Lee: [00:20:31] How many people was that?    David Lei: [00:20:32] About a hundred thousand. 97% of the 105,000 Chinese refused to do this. So if you look at these certificate of residencies that the Chinese were forced to carry. They were supposed to register in 1892. Almost all of them are 1894. Some of them in fact many of them are May, 1894, the last second that you can register before they start deporting you. So the Chinese. Also practiced civil disobedience and the largest incidents, a hundred thousand people for two years.    Miko Lee: [00:21:15] How did they communicate with each other about that?   David Lei: [00:21:18] The Chinese were very well connected through the six companies, their district association, their surname association oftentimes because of. The racism segregation, the Chinese were forced to live in Chinatowns or relied on their own network. To support each other. So there, there's a lot of letter writing and a lot of institutions, and they kept in touch.That network was very powerful. In fact, the network to interpret a law for everybody interpret uh, any rules of business, and. Just how to conduct themselves in America. They have a lot of institutions doing that. We still have them in the 24 square blocks we call Chinatown. We have almost 300 organizations helping the immigrants. Chinese there with language, with how to do your taxes tutoring for their kids. Advice on schools paying their bills and so on. We have surnames associations, we have district associations, we have gills, we have fraternal organizations, and we certainly have a lot of nonprofits. So it's very, very supportive community. And that's always been the case.    Miko Lee: [00:22:42] I'm wondering what you feel like we can learn from those organizers today. A hundred thousand for civil disobedience. And we're often portrayed as the model minority people just follow along. That's a lot of people during that time. And what do you think we can learn today from those folks that organize for civil disobedience and the Chinese Exclusion Act?    David Lei: [00:23:03] It takes a community. One person can't do it. You have to organize. You have to contribute. You have to hire the best lawyers, the very best. In fact, with the Yik Wo versus Hopkins case, the equal protection under law, the Chinese immediately raised 20,000 equivalent to half a million. It takes collective action. It takes money. You just have to support this to keep our rights.    Miko Lee: [00:23:29] And lastly, what would you like our audience to understand about Wong Kim Ark?    David Lei: [00:23:35] Well, Wong Kim Ark, he was just an average person, a working person that the immigration department made life miserable for him. Is very difficult to be an immigrant anytime, but today is even worse. We have to have some empathy. He was the test case, but there were so many others. I mentioned Look Tin Sing, whose adult name is Look Tin Eli. We know a lot about Look Tin Eli and then this other Hong Yin Ming in 1888 before Wong Kim Ark and so generations of generations of immigrants. Have had a hard time with our immigration department. It's just not a friendly thing we do here. And you know, we're all descendants of immigrants unless you're a Native American. Like I mentioned Look Tin Sing, who was the first case that I could find. For birthright citizenship. His mother was Native American, but Native American didn't even get to be citizens until 1924. You know, that's kind of really strange. But that was the case.    Miko Lee: [00:24:50] That's very absurd in our world.    David Lei: [00:24:52] Yes, Chinatown is where it is today because of Look Tin Sing, his adult name, Look Tin Eli. He saved Chinatown after the earthquake. He's the one that organized all the business people to rebuild Chinatown like a fantasy Chinese land Epcot center with all the pagoda roofs, and he's the one that saved Chinatown. Without him and his Native American mother, we would've been moved to Hunter's Point after the earthquake. He later on became president of the China Bank and also president of the China Mayo Steamship Line. So he was an important figure in Chinese American history, but he had to deal with immigration.   Miko Lee: [00:25:39] David Lei, thank you so much for sharing your wisdom with us. I appreciate hearing this story and folks can find out when you are part of a panel discussion for Wong Kim Ark week, right?    David Lei: [00:25:50] Yes.    Miko Lee: [00:25:51] Great. We will be able to see you there. Thank you so much for being on Apex Express. Annie Lee, managing director of Policy at Chinese for affirmative action. Welcome to Apex Express.    Annie Lee: [00:26:01] Thank you so much for having me Miko.    Miko Lee: [00:26:02] I wanna just start with this, a personal question, which is, who are your people and what legacy do you carry with you?    Annie Lee: [00:26:10] I am the daughter of monolingual working class Chinese immigrants. And so I would say my people hail from Southern China and were able to come to the United States where I was born and was allowed to thrive and call this place home. I do this work at Chinese for Affirmative Action on their behalf and for other folks like them.    Miko Lee: [00:26:31] Thanks Annie, Today we're recording on March 17th, and I'm noting this because as we know, things are changing so quickly in this chaotic administration. By the time this airs on Thursday, things might change. So today's March 17th. Can you as both an educator and a lawyer, give me a little bit of update on where birthright citizenship, where does it stand legally right now?    Annie Lee: [00:26:55] As an educator and a lawyer, I wanna situate us in where birthright citizenship lives in the law, which is in the 14th Amendment. So the 14th Amendment has a birthright citizenship clause, which is very clear, and it states that people who were born in the United States, in subject to the laws thereof are United States citizens. The reason. This clause was explicitly added into the 14th Amendment, was because of chattel slavery in the United States and how this country did not recognize the citizenship of enslaved African Americans for generations. And so after the Civil War and the Union winning that war and the ends of slavery . We had to make African Americans citizens, they had to be full citizens in the eye of the law. And that is why we have the 14th Amendment. And that clause of the 14th Amendment was later litigated all the way to the Supreme Court by Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco, like me, two Chinese immigrant parents. When he left the United States, he went to China to visit his family. He tried to come back. They wouldn't let him in. and he said, I am a citizen because I was born in the United States and this clause in your 14th amendment, our 14th amendment says that I'm a citizen. It went all the way to Supreme Court and the Supreme Court agreed with Wong Kim Ark. Does not matter your parents' citizenship status. Everyone born in the United States is a US citizen, except for a very, very narrow set of exceptions for the kids of foreign diplomats that really is not worth getting into. Everyone is born. Everyone who's born in the United States is a citizen. Okay? So then you all know from Trump's executive order on day one of his second presidency that he is attempting to upends this very consistent piece of law, and he is using these fringe, outlandish legal arguments that we have never heard before and has never merited any discussion because it is just. Facially incorrect based on the law and all of the interpretation of the 14th amendment after that amendment was ratified. So he is using that to try to upend birthright citizenship. There have been a number of lawsuits. Over 10 lawsuits from impacted parties, from states and there have been three federal judges in Maryland, Washington State, and New Hampshire, who have issued nationwide injunctions to stop the executive order from taking effect. That means that despite what Trump says in his executive order. The birthright citizenship clause remains as it is. So any child born today in the United States is still a citizen. The problem we have is that despite what three judges now issuing a nationwide injunction, the Trump's government has now sought assistance from the Supreme Court to consider his request to lift the nationwide pause on his executive order. So the justices, have requested filings from parties by early April, to determine whether or not a nationwide injunction is appropriate. This is extraordinary. This is not the way litigation works in the United States. Usually you let the cases proceed. In the normal process, which goes from a district court to an appeals court, and then eventually to the Supreme Court if it gets appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. This is very different from the normal course of action and I think very troubling.    Miko Lee: [00:30:36] So can you talk a little bit about that? I know we constantly say in this administration it's unprecedented, but talk about how there's three different states that have actually filed this injunction. , how typical is that for then it or it to then go to the Supreme Court?    Annie Lee: [00:30:53] Just to clarify, it's not three different states. It's judges in three different states. In fact, more than many, many states, 18 more than 18 states. There have been two lawsuits related, brought by states one that California was a part of that had multiple states over 18 states as well as San Francisco and District of Columbia. Then there was another lawsuit brought by another set of states. and so many states are opposed to this, for different reasons. I find their complaints to be very, very compelling. Before I get into the fact that multiple judges have ruled against the Trump administration, I did want to explain that the reason states care about this is because birthright citizenship is not an immigration issue. Birthright citizenship is just a fundamental issue of impacting everyone, and I really want people to understand this. If you are white and born in the United States, you are a birthright citizen. If you are black and born in the United States, you are a birthright citizen. It is a fallacy to believe that birthright citizenship only impacts immigrants. That is not true. I am a mother and I gave birth to my second child last year, so I've been through this process. Every person who gives birth in the United States. You go to the hospital primarily, they talk to you after your child is born about how to get a social security card for your child. All you have to do is have your child's birth certificate. That is how every state in this country processes citizenship and how the federal government processes citizenship. It is through a birth certificate, and that is all you need. So you go to your health department in your city, you get the birth certificate, you tell, then you get your social security card. That is how everyone does it. If you change this process, it will impact every state in this country and it will be very, very cumbersome. Which is why all of these states, attorneys general, are up in arms about changing birthright citizenship. It is just the way we function. That again applies to re regardless of your parents' immigration status. This is an issue that impacts every single American. Now, to your question as to what does it mean if multiple judges in different states, in different federal district courts have all ruled against. Donald Trump, I think it really means that the law is clear. You have judges who ha are Reagan appointees saying that the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment is crystal clear. It has, it is clear in terms of the text. If you are a textualist and you read exactly what the text says, if you believe in the context of, The 14th Amendment. If you look at the judicial history and just how this clause has been interpreted since ratification, like everything is consistent, this is not an area of law that has any gray area. And you see that because different judges in different district courts in Maryland, in Washington, in New Hampshire all have cited against Donald Trump.    Miko Lee: [00:33:54] So what is the intention of going to the Supreme Court?    Annie Lee: [00:33:59] I mean, he is trying to forum shop. He's trying to get a court that he believes will favor his interpretation and that is why the right has spent the last half century stacking federal courts. And that is why Mitch McConnell did not let Barack Obama replace Antonin Scalia. The composition of the Supreme Court is. So, so important, and you can see it at times like this.    Miko Lee: [00:34:28] But so many of the conservatives always talk about being constitutionalists, like really standing for the Constitution. So how do those things line up?   Annie Lee: [00:34:38] Oh, Miko, that's a great question. Indeed, yes, if they were the textualist that they say they are, this is a pretty clear case, but, Law is not as cut and dry as people think it is. It is obviously motivated by politics and that means law is subject to interpretation.   Miko Lee: [00:34:59] Annie, thank you so much for this breakdown. Are there any things that you would ask? Are people that are listening to this, how can they get involved? What can they do?    Annie Lee: [00:35:09] I would recommend folks check out StopAAPIHate. We are having monthly town halls as well as weekly videos to help break down what is happening. There's so much news and misinformation out there but we are trying to explain everything to everyone because these anti-immigration. Policies that are coming out be, this is anti-Asian hate and people should know that. You can also check out resources through Chinese for affirmative action. Our website has local resources for those of you who are in the Bay Area, including the rapid response lines for bay Area counties if you need any services, if you. See ICE. , if you want to know where their ICE is in any particular location, please call your rapid response line and ask them for that verifiable information. Thank you.    Miko Lee: [00:36:00] Thank you so much, Annie Lee for joining us today on Apex.    Ayame Keane-Lee: [00:36:04] You are listening to 94.1 KPFA and 89.3 KPFB in Berkeley, 88.1 KFCF in Fresno, 97.5 K248BR in Santa Cruz, 94.3 K232FZ in Monterey, and online worldwide at kpfa.org.   Miko Lee: [00:36:23] Welcome, Nicholas Gee from Chinese for affirmative action. Welcome to Apex Express.    Nicholas Gee: [00:36:29] Thanks so much, Miko. Glad to be here.    Miko Lee: [00:36:31] I'm so glad that you could join us on the fly. I wanted to first just start by asking you a personal question, which is for you to tell me who you are,, who are your people and what legacy do you carry with you.   Nicholas Gee: [00:36:46] I'll start off by saying Miko, thanks so much for having me. My name is Nicholas Gee and I am a third and or fourth generation Chinese American, born and raised in Houston, Texas. And for me, what that means is, is that my great-great-grandparents and great-grandparents migrated from Southern China, fleeing war and famine and looking for opportunity in the middle of the early, like 19 hundreds. And they wanted to start an opportunity here for future generations like me. My people are my family who migrated here over a hundred years ago. who were settling to start a new life. My people are also the people that I advocate with, the Language Access network of San Francisco, the Immigrant Parent Voting Collaborative, my colleagues at Chinese for affirmative action and stop AAPI hate. I think about my people as the people that I'm advocating with on the ground day to day asking and demanding for change.   Miko Lee: [00:37:41] Thank you. And what legacy do you carry with you?    Nicholas Gee: [00:37:45] I carry the legacy of my elders, particularly my grandparents who immigrated here in around the 1940s or so. And when I think about their legacy, I think a lot about the legacy of immigration, what it means to be here, what it means to belong, and the fight for advocacy and the work that I do today.    Miko Lee: [00:38:05] Thanks so much, Nick, and we're here doing this show all about Wong Kim Ark, and I know Chinese for affirmative action has planned this whole week-long celebration to bring up as we're talking about legacy, the legacy of Wong Kim Ark. Can you talk about how this one week celebration came to be and what folks can expect?    Nicholas Gee: [00:38:26] Yeah. As folks may know we are in the midst of many executive orders that have been in place and one of them being the executive order to end birthright citizenship. And Wong Kim Ark was actually born and raised in San Francisco's Chinatown, particularly on seven. 51 Sacramento Street. In the heart of the community and local partners here in this city, we're really trying to figure out how do we advocate and protect birthright citizenship? How do we bring momentum to tell the story of Wong Kim Ark in a moment when birthright citizenship is, in the process of being removed And so we really wanted to create some momentum around the storytelling, around the legacy of Wong Kim Ark, but also the legal implications and what it means for us to advocate and protect for birthright citizenship. And so I joined a couple of our local partners and particularly our team at Chinese for affirmative action to develop and create the first ever Wong Kim Ark Week. Officially known as born in the USA and the Fight for Citizenship, a week long series of events, specifically to honor the 127th anniversary of the Landmark Supreme Court case, US versus Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for all in the United States.    Miko Lee: [00:39:44] What will happen during this week-long celebration?   Nicholas Gee: [00:39:48] We have several scheduled events to raise awareness, mobilize the community, and really to stand up for the rights of all immigrants and their families. One is an incredible book Talk in conversation with author and activist Bianca Boutte. Louie, who recently authored a book called Unassimilable. And she tells a personal narrative and provides a sharp analysis for us to think about race and belonging and solidarity in America, particularly through an Asian American lens. This event is hosted by the Chinese Historical Society of America. Following. We have a live in-person community symposium on Wong Kim Ark legacy and the struggle for citizenship. There'll be a powerful community conversation with legal advocates, storytellers, movement builders, to have a dynamic conversation on the impact of birthright citizenship. Who is Wong Kim Ark? What is his enduring legacy and how people can join us for the ongoing struggle for justice? And you know, we actually have a special guest, Norman Wong, who is the great grandson of Wong Kim Ark. He'll be joining us for this special event. We have a couple of more events. One is a Chinatown History and Art Tour hosted by Chinese Culture Center, this is a small group experience where community members can explore Chinatown's vibrant history, art, and activism, and particularly we'll learn about the legacy of Wong Kim Ark and then lastly, we have a in-person press conference that's happening on Friday, which is we're gonna conclude the whole week of, Wong Kim Ark with a birthright, citizenship resolution and a Wong Kim Ark dedication. And so we'll be celebrating his enduring impact on Birthright citizenship and really these ongoing efforts to protect, our fundamental right. and the San Francisco Public Library is actually hosting an Asian American and Pacific Islander book display at the North Beach campus and they'll be highlighting various books and authors and titles inspired by themes of migration, community, and resilience. So those are our scheduled, events We're welcoming folks to join and folks can register, and check out more information at casf.org/WongKimArk    Miko Lee: [00:42:04] Thanks so much and we will post a link to that in our show notes. I'm wondering how many of those are in Chinese as well as English?    Nicholas Gee: [00:42:13] That is a fantastic question, Miko. We currently have the community symposium on Wong Kim Ark legacy in the struggle for citizenship. This event will have live interpretation in both Mandarin and Cantonese.    Miko Lee: [00:42:46] What would you like folks to walk away with? An understanding of what.    Nicholas Gee: [00:42:30] We really want people to continue to learn about the legacy of birthright citizenship and to become an advocate with us. We also have some information on our website, around what you can do to protect birthright citizenship. As an advocate, we are always thinking about how do we get people involved, to think about civic engagement intentional education and to tie that back to our advocacy. And so we have a couple of ways that we're inviting people to take action with us. One is to invite a friend to consider attending one of our events. If you're based here in the San Francisco Bay area or if you're online, join us for the book Talk with Bianca. , two, we're inviting folks to take action and oppose the executive order to ban birthright citizenship. Chinese for affirmative action has. A call to action where we can actually send a letter to petition , to oppose this executive order to send a message directly to our congressman or woman. and lastly, you know, we're asking people to learn about Wong Kim Ark as a whole, and to learn about the impacts of birthright citizenship. My hope is that folks walk away with more of an understanding of what does it mean here to be an advocate? What does it mean to take action across the community and really to communicate this is what resilience will look like in our community    Miko Lee: [00:43:44] Nick Gee, thank you so much for joining me on Apex Express. It was great to hear how people can get involved in the Wong Kim Ark week and learn more about actions and how they can get involved. We appreciate the work you're doing.    Nicholas Gee: [00:43:56] Thanks so much Miko, and I'm excited to launch this.   Miko Lee: [00:43:58] Welcome, Reverend Deb Lee, executive Director of Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity and part of the Network on Religion and justice. Thank you so much for coming on Apex Express.    Rev. Deb Lee: [00:44:09] Great to be here. Miko.    Miko Lee: [00:44:11] I would love you just personally to tell me who are your people and what legacy do you carry with you?   Rev. Deb Lee: [00:44:17] Wow. Well, my people are people in the Chinese diaspora. My family's been in diaspora for seven generations, from southern China to southeast to Asia. and then eventually to the United States. What I carry with me is just a huge sense of resistance and this idea of like, we can survive anywhere and we take our love and our family and our ancestor we gotta carry it with us. We don't always have land or a place to put it down into the ground, and so we carry those things with us. , that sense of resistance and resilience.    Miko Lee: [00:44:56] Thank you so much. I relate to that so much as a fifth generation Chinese American. To me, it's really that sense of resilience is so deep and powerful, and I'm wondering as a person from the faith community, if you could share about the relevance of Wong Kim Ark and Birthright citizenship.   Rev. Deb Lee: [00:45:12] Yeah, Wong Kim Ark is critical because he was somebody who really fought back against racist laws and really asserted his right to be part of this country, his right to have the Constitution apply to him too. I'm just so grateful for him and so many of the other Chinese Americans who fought back legally and resisted against in that huge wave of period of Chinese exclusion to create some of the really important immigration laws that we have today. I wouldn't be a citizen without birthright citizenship myself. Wong Kim Ark really established that every person who is born on this soil has a right to constitutional protection, has a right to be a citizen. And in fact, the Constitution in the 14th Amendment also applies to let equal treatment for everyone here, everyone who is here. You don't even have to be a citizen for the constitutional rights. And the Fourth Amendment, the fifth Amendment, the first amendment to apply to you. And those things are so under attack right now. It's so important to establish the equality. Of every person and the right for people here in this country to have safety and belonging, that everyone here deserves safety and belonging.    Miko Lee: [00:46:24] Thank you so much for lifting up that activist history. as, a person who was raised in a theological setting at a seminary, I was really raised around this ethos of love as an active tool and a way of fighting for civil rights, fighting for things that we believe in. And I'm wondering if you could talk about how you see that playing out in today. And especially as you know, this Trump regime has had such incredible impacts on immigrants and on so much of our activist history. I'm wondering if you have thoughts on that?    Rev. Deb Lee: [00:47:00] Well, so much of the civil rights history in this country, you know, going back to like the activism of Chinese Americans to establish some of those civil rights. You know, it goes back to this idea of like, who is fully human, who can be fully human, whose humanity will be fully recognized? And so I think that's what's connects back to my faith and connects back to faith values of the sacredness of every person, the full humanity, the full participation, the dignity. And so I think, Wong Kim Ark and the other, like Chinese American activists, they were fighting for like, you know, we don't wanna just be, we're gonna just gonna be laborers. We're not just going to be people who you can, Bring in and kick out whenever you want, but like, we want to be fully human and in this context of this nation state, that means being fully citizens.And so I think that that struggle and that striving to say we want that full humanity to be recognized, that is a fundamental kind of belief for many faith traditions, which, you know, speak to the radical equality of all people and the radical dignity of all people, that can't be taken away, but that has to really be recognized. What's under attack right now is. So much dehumanization, stigmatization of people, you know, based on race, based on class, based on gender, based on what country people were born in, what papers they carry, you know, if they ever had contact, prior contact with the law, like all these things. You know, are immediately being used to disregard someone's humanity. And so I think those of us who come from a faith tradition or who just share that kind of sense of, value and, deep humanism in other people, that's where we have to root ourselves in this time in history and really being, you know, we are going to defend one another's humanity and dignity, at all costs.   Miko Lee: [00:48:55] Thank you for that. I'm wondering if there are other lessons that we can learn from Wong Kim Ark, I mean, the time when he fought back against, this was so early in 1894, as you mentioned, the Chinese exclusion acts and I'm wondering if there are other lessons that we can learn from him in, in our time when we are seeing so many of our rights being eroded.   Rev. Deb Lee: [00:49:17] I think that there's so many ways, that we think about how did people organize then like, you know, it's challenging to organize now, but if you can imagine organizing then, and I'm thinking, you know, when Chinese people were required to carry identification papers and you know, on mass they refused to do that and they. Practice, like a form of civil disobedience. And I think we're at this time now, like the Trump administration's telling anybody here who's unauthorized to come forward and to register well, I think people need to think twice about that. And people are, there are many other things that they're trying to impose on the immigrant community and I think one like lesson is like, how do people survive through a period of exclusion and we are today in a period of exclusion. That really goes back to the mid 1980s, when there was, last, a significant immigration reform that created a pathway to citizenship. Only for about 3 million people. But after that, since that time in the mid 1980s, there has been no other pathways to citizenship, no other forms of amnesty, no other ways for people to fix their status.So in fact, we are already in another 40 year period of exclusion again. And so one of those lessons is how do people survive this period? Like right, and left. They're taking away all the laws and protections that we had in our immigration system. They were very narrow already. Now even those are being eliminated and any form of compassion or discretion or leniency or understanding has been removed. So I think people are in a period of. Survival. How do we survive and get through? And a lot of the work that we're doing on sanctuary right now we have a sanctuary people campaign, a sanctuary congregations campaign is how do we walk alongside immigrants to whom there is no path. There is no right way. there is no opening right now. But walk with them and help support them because right now they're trying to squeeze people so badly that they will self deport. And leave on their own. This is part of a process of mass expulsion but if people really believe that they want to stay and be here, how do we help support people to get through this period of exclusion until there will be another opening? And I believe there will be like our, our history kind of spirals in and out, and sometimes there are these openings and that's something I take from the faith communities. If you look at Chinese American history in this country, the role that faith communities played in walking with the immigrant community and in supporting them, and there's many stories that help people get through that period of exclusion as well.   Miko Lee: [00:51:52] Deb, I'm wondering what you would say to folks. I'm hearing from so many people [say] I can't read the news. It's too overwhelming. I don't wanna get involved. I just have to take care of myself. And so I'm just waiting. And even James Carville, the political opponent, say we gotta play dead for a few years. What are your thoughts on this?    Rev. Deb Lee: [00:52:11] Well, we can't play totally dead. I wish the Democrats wouldn't be playing dead, but I think that a person of faith, we have to stay present we don't really have the option to check out and we actually have to be in tune with the suffering. I think it would be irresponsible for us to. You know, turn a blind eye to the suffering. And I wanna encourage people that actually opportunities to walk with people who are being impacted and suffering can actually be deeply, fulfilling and can help give hope and give meaning. And there are people who are looking for solidarity right now. We are getting a lot of calls every week for someone who just wants them, wants someone to go to their court or go to the ice, check-in with them, and literally just like walk three blocks down there with them and wait for them. To make sure they come out. And if they don't come out to call the rapid response hotline, it doesn't take much. But it's a huge act like this is actually what some of the immigrant communities are asking for, who are millions of people who are under surveillance right now and have to report in. So those small acts of kindness can be deeply rewarding in this. Sea of overwhelming cruelty. And I think we have an obligation to find something that we can do. , find a way, find a person, find someone that we can connect to support and be in solidarity with and think about people in our past. Who have accompanied us or accompanied our people and our people's journey. And when those acts of kindness and those acts of neighbors and acts of friendship have meant so much I know like my family, they still tell those stories of like, this one person, you know, in Ohio who welcome them and said hello. We don't even know their names. Those acts can be etched in people's hearts and souls. And right now people need us.    Miko Lee: [00:53:59] Oh, I love that. I've talked with many survivors of the Japanese American concentration camps, and so many of them talk about the people of conscience, meaning the people that were able to step up and help support them during, before and after that time. Lastly, I'm wondering, you're naming some really specific ways that people can get engaged, and I know you're deeply involved in the sanctuary movement. Can you provide us with ways that people can find out more? More ways to get involved in some of the work that you are doing.    Rev. Deb Lee: [00:54:29] I'll put a plug in for our website. It's www dot I am number four, human integrity.org. So it's, iam4humanintegrity.org. We work with families that are impacted facing deportation, looking for all kinds of ways to get the community to rally around folks and support and we work with faith communities who are thinking about how to become sanctuary congregations and how to be an important resource in your local community. The other organizations, I would say sign up for Bay Resistance. They're organizing a lot of volunteers that we call on all the time we're working with. We're, you know, working with many organizations, the Bay Area, to make sure that a new ice detention facility does not get built. They are looking at the potential site of Dublin. We've worked really hard the last decade to get all the detention centers out of Northern California. We don't want them to open up a new one here.   Miko Lee: [00:55:27] Deb Lee, thank you so much for joining us on Apex Express and folks can actually see Deb on Tuesday night in Wong Kim Ark Week as one of the speakers. Thank you so much for joining us.    Rev. Deb Lee: [00:55:38] Thank you, Miko.    Miko Lee: [00:55:39] Thank you so much for joining us on Apex Express. We're gonna close this episode with words from Norman Wong, the great grandson of Wong Kim Ark.   Norman Wong: [00:55:49] So let's fight back. Threats to birthright citizenship will only divide us, and right now we need to come together to continue the impact of my great grandfather's. This is my family's legacy, and now it's part of yours too. Thank you    Miko Lee: [00:56:11] Please check out our website, kpfa.org to find out more about our show tonight. We think all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating and sharing your visions with the world because your voices are important. Apex Express is created by Miko Lee, Jalena Keane-Lee, Preti Mangala-Shekar, Swati Rayasam, Aisa Villarosa, Estella Owoimaha-Church, Gabriel Tanglao, Cheryl Truong and Ayame Keane-Lee.    The post APEX Express – 3.20.25- Wong Kim Ark appeared first on KPFA.

In this episode, I talk with Agustina Vergara Cid, an immigration policy expert, to break down the complex issue of birthright citizenship and President Trump's day-one executive order attempting to alter it. We discuss the history and legal foundation of birthright citizenship, tracing its roots to the 14th Amendment and the 1898 Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that anyone born on U.S. soil (except for children of diplomats) is an American citizen. Agustina explains how Trump's executive order aims to deny citizenship to children of non-citizen visa holders and undocumented immigrants—something she believes is a direct constitutional challenge. We explore the motivation behind the order, the likelihood of it surviving court scrutiny, and how immigration laws in Europe and the U.S. differ, particularly in how they impact assimilation. We also discuss: The myth of "anchor babies" and why the 21-year waiting period makes it an unlikely incentive. How countries like Germany have struggled with immigration assimilation due to restrictive citizenship policies. The broader implications of Trump's immigration strategy, including targeting legal immigrants and even denaturalized citizens. The welfare state argument, whether immigrants receive massive government payments, and how cities like New York are handling recent arrivals. Why Agustina believes America should strive for more Americans, not fewer, and the economic and cultural benefits of a strong immigration policy. This was an insightful conversation about what it means to be an American, how immigration policies shape the nation, and the real-world impact of political rhetoric. Agustina Vergara Cid, LL.B. and LL.M., is a Young Voices contributor focusing on immigration policy. Her commentary has appeared in The Orange County Register, Newsweek, and The Hill. Follow her on X: @agustinavcid Follow Agustina Vergara Cid on: Twitter/X: @agustinavcid Instagram: @agustinavcid Ending Birthright Citizenship Won't Make America Great - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/01/29/ending_birthright_citizenship_wont_make_america_great_152263.html Video - https://youtu.be/A_-qurj0e3k Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tune in here to this Monday edition of the Brett Winterble Show with Jason Lewis filling in! Jason kicks off the program by discussing the liberal-leaning media (especially outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and CBS) for what he perceives as intentional dishonesty, including examples from the Trump era. He discusses how the media lied about major stories such as the Steele Dossier, Russian collusion, and the Covington Catholic students' incident, among others.Later in the show, Jason critiques recent media reports suggesting that birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Lewis argues that the idea of birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants is not supported by the Constitution, citing historical cases like Wong Kim Ark to illustrate his point. Also, we're joined by Dr. John Lott, an American economist, political commentator, and gun rights advocate, to discuss globalists and the "West's Decline." They discuss how certain elites, like George Soros, want to fundamentally transform the West by replacing native populations through mass immigration and undermining traditional values. He suggests that these globalists want to turn America into a society like Venezuela, where a wealthy elite is protected behind walls, while the rest of the population suffers. Listen here for all of this and more on The Brett Winterble Show! For more from Brett Winterble, check out his YouTube channel.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We continue our look at the controversy surrounding birthright citizenship with an in depth review of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Check out our new True Crime Substack the True Crime Times at: https://t.co/26TIoM14Tg Get Prosecutors Podcast Merch: https://www.bonfire.com/store/prosecutors-podcast/ Join the Gallery on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/g/4oHFF4agcAvBhm3o/ Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ProsecutorsPod Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/prosecutorspod/ Check out our website for case resources: https://prosecutorspodcast.com/ Hang out with us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@prosecutorspod

About this episode: In 1868, the 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship in the United States. In this episode: a look at the court cases, historical events, and people that shaped one of the Constitution's human rights provisions. Guest: Martha Jones is a writer, historian and legal scholar, and a professor of history at the SNF Agora Institute. Host: Dr. Josh Sharfstein is vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, a faculty member in health policy, a pediatrician, and former secretary of Maryland's Health Department. Show links and related content: Dred Scott v. Sandford—National Archives Opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals, Hughes v. Jackson (1858)—National Constitution Center United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)—National Constitution Center The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution Contact us: Have a question about something you heard? Looking for a transcript? Want to suggest a topic or guest? Contact us via email or visit our website. Follow us: @‌PublicHealthPod on Bluesky @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Instagram @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Facebook @‌PublicHealthOnCall on YouTube Here's our RSS feed

Hugh Hallman, Attorney, Educator, and former Mayor of Tempe, joins Seth in studio for the full hour to talk about former president Biden's cognitive absence in his term, the constitutional norms surrounding birthright citizenship and the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The 1898 supreme court case called United States vs. Wong Kim Ark had affected enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion Act, because the court found that people born in the U.S. to Chinese parents were U.S. citizens. Research: Graber, Mark A. "United States v. Wong Kim Ark." American Governance, edited by Stephen Schechter, et al., vol. 5, Macmillan Reference USA, 2016, pp. 228-230. Gale In Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3629100710/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=73795502. Accessed 22 Jan. 2025. "United States v. Wong Kim Ark." Gale U.S. History Online Collection, Gale, 2024. Gale In Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EXXRWP999307394/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=c225358c. Accessed 22 Jan. 2025. "United States v. Wong Kim Ark." Great American Court Cases, edited by Mark Mikula and L. Mpho Mabunda, vol. 3: Equal Protection and Family Law, Gale, 1999. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ2303200443/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=01ef8726. Accessed 22 Jan. 2025. Zietlow, Rebecca E. "Fourteenth Amendment: Citizenship Clause." American Governance, edited by Stephen Schechter, et al., vol. 2, Macmillan Reference USA, 2016, pp. 248-251. Gale In Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3629100269/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=5c43018e. Accessed 22 Jan. 2025. Rosenbloom, Rachel E. “Birthright Citizenship Has Been Challenged Before.” Time. 1/15/2025. https://time.com/7204970/birthright-citizenship-test-cases/ Bomboy, Scott. “Updated: The birthright citizenship question and the Constitution.” National Constitution Center. 1/21/2025. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/revisiting-the-birthright-citizenship-question-and-the-constitution Cabrera-Lomelí, Carlos. “A 129-Year-Old San Francisco Lawsuit Could Stop Trump From Ending Birthright Citizenship.” KQED. 1/21/2025. https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship Abdelfatah, Rund et al. “By Accident of Birth.” Throughline. NPR. 6/9/2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/06/1103291268/by-accident-of-birth Dhillon, Hardeep. “How the Fight for Birthright Citizenship Shaped the History of Asian American Families.” Smithsonian. 3/27/2023. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-the-fight-for-birthright-citizenship-reshaped-asian-american-families-180981866/ Frost, Amanda. “Birthright Citizens and Paper Sons.” The American Scholar. 1/18/2021. https://theamericanscholar.org/birthright-citizens-and-paper-sons/ Moore, Robert. “He won a landmark citizenship case at the US Supreme Court. El Paso tried to deport him anyway.” El Paso Matters. 7/4/2022. https://elpasomatters.org/2022/07/04/wong-kim-ark-vs-united-states-history-immigration-supreme-court/ Frost, Amanda. “’By Accident of Birth’: The Battle over Birthright Citizenship After United States v. Wong Kim Ark.” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/7583 Berger, Bethany. “Birthright Citizenship on Trial: Elk v. Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.” Articles and Papers. 378. 2016. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_papers/378 National Archives Catalog. “In the matter of Wong Kim Ark for a writ of habeas corpus.” https://catalog.archives.gov/id/296026 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In Episode 264 of the CounterVortex podcast, Bill Weinberg intervews Kim of New York City's Chinatown Cantonese Toisan group about her efforts to promote Cantonese and Toisan langauge and culture. Indigenous to China's Guangdong province, these tongues are spoken by millions in a global diaspora. Thanks to the efforts of State Sen. Iwen Chu, Feb. 12 is now Taishan (Toisan) Day in New York state, commemorating the day in 1499, during the Ming Dynasty, that Toisan County was officially created—and honoring the contributions of Toisan immigrants, most notably in the dangerous work of building the Transcontinental Railroad. It was a Toisan man born in San Francisco, Wong Kim Ark, who won the 1898 Supreme Court case that established birthright citizenship as a constitutional right. Yet in China, Cantonese and Toisan are relegated to the status of fangyan (regional dialects) and officially discouraged in favor of Mandarin—leading to protests in provincial capital Guangzhou in 2010. Even in the US, the children's book Coolies, about the Cantonese railroad workers, has been banned from public libraries by local forces of intolerance. Through exhibits, social gatherings and a weekly language class, Kim works to keep Cantonese and Toisan heritage and pride alive in the New York metropolitan area. Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon. Books discussed: Fusang: The Chinese who Built America by Stan Steiner, Harper & Row 1979 Coolies by Yin & Chris K. Soentpiet, Philomel Books 2001 https://www.patreon.com/countervortex Production by Chris Rywalt We ask listeners to donate just $1 per weekly podcast via Patreon -- or $2 for our new special offer! We now have 70 subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 71!

Wong Kim Ark was born in the U.S. and lived his whole life here. But when he returned from a trip to China in August of 1895, officials wouldn't let him leave his ship. Citing the Chinese Exclusion Act, which denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants, they told him he was not, in fact, a citizen of the United States.Today, the story of Wong Kim Ark, whose epic fight to be recognized as a citizen in his own country led to a Supreme Court decision affirming birthright citizenship for all. This episode originally ran as By Accident of Birth.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Shannon Salmon-Haas joins host Todd Marquardt to talk about the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark birthright citizenship case on this bonus edition of Talk Law Radio! Attorney Todd Marquardt brings you insightful topics every Saturday morning, but he's not stopping there! Join Todd every Sunday afternoon at 4:30pm for a special bonus segment! He addresses trending and specific topics in more detail with a professional perspective. The mission of Talk Law Radio is to help you discover your legal issue blind spots by listening to me talk about the law on the radio. The state bar of Texas is the state agency that governs attorney law licenses. The State Bar wants attorneys to inform the public about the law but does not want us to attempt to solve your individual legal problems upon the basis of general information. Instead, contact an attorney like Todd A. Marquardt at Marquardt Law Firm, P.C. to discuss your specific facts and circumstances of your unique situation. Like & Subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/@talklawradio3421 Listen here! www.TalkLawRadio.com Work with Todd! https://marquardtlawfirm.com/ Join attorney Todd Marquardt every week for exciting law talk on Talk Law Radio! Follow Shannon Salmon-Haas! Instagram: @shannonrobertasanantonio Tik Tok: @shannonrobertasa Facebook: @Shannon Roberta San AntonioSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

During his campaign, now-President Trump promised a lot of action (much of it to happen on day one). So what did he actually do once he regained the office? A LOT. This is the first week of Trump's executive orders.For some context, check out our episodes on:Wong Kim Ark and Birthright CitizenshipDred ScottThe Fourteenth Amendment   CLICK HERE: Visit our website to see all of our episodes, donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more! To see Civics 101 in book form, check out A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works by Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice, featuring illustrations by Tom Toro.Check out our other weekly NHPR podcast, Outside/In - we think you'll love it!

When it comes to citizenship decided by birth, the story of Wong Kim Ark, a young man born in the US of Chinese descent who was denied entry to his country, should be on a few minds. We tell that story in this episode, along with the Sand Lot protests that led to his change in status, and the 1804 about a ship that helped reinforce their thinking. This and thoughts about early Trump Presidency. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this captivating episode of Dave Does History on Bill Mick Live, Dave Bowman takes us on a thought-provoking journey through the legal, historical, and cultural ramifications of birthright citizenship. This discussion dives into the heart of the 14th Amendment, unpacking its revolutionary impact on defining citizenship in the United States, while tracing its origins back to the Reconstruction Era. With his signature mix of wit and analytical insight, Dave explains the challenges and controversies surrounding the interpretation of the citizenship clause. From its role in overturning the infamous Dred Scott decision to its enduring implications in modern debates on immigration, the episode lays bare the struggles of a nation reconciling its foundational ideals with its ever-evolving demographics. Bowman also highlights key moments in the legal battles, including the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which cemented the principle of jus soli—citizenship by birthright. Listeners are treated to an engaging exploration of the broader cultural and geopolitical impacts of U.S. immigration policy, such as the exclusionary Immigration Act of 1924 and its unintended consequences, including strained international relations with Japan. Bowman challenges listeners to consider the long-term implications of revisiting this issue, raising essential questions about the balance between legal precedent, constitutional interpretation, and the nation's values. This episode isn't just a lesson in history—it's a masterclass in connecting the past to the present, reminding us why understanding history is crucial for navigating today's challenges. Whether you're a history enthusiast or just curious about the roots of today's debates, this discussion offers a fresh and insightful take that shouldn't be missed.

Mona interviews Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck on executive orders, birthright citizenship, Congress not doing its job, and whether Trump will defy the Supreme Court. Referenced Cases: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) – Commonly referred to as the "Steel Seizure Case," it involved President Truman's attempt to take control of steel mills during the Korean War. Korematsu v. United States (1944) – Upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II; later criticized but not formally overturned until its repudiation in Trump v. Hawaii. Ex Parte Endo (1944) – A companion case to Korematsu, ruling the detention of a loyal Japanese American citizen was unauthorized by statute. Trump v. Hawaii (2018) – Upheld the Trump administration's travel ban but included the repudiation of Korematsu as part of the decision. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) – Affirmed the principle of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. INS v. Chadha (1983) – Declared legislative vetoes unconstitutional, affecting the National Emergencies Act. TikTok-related Executive Orders and Litigation – Mentioned in the context of national security and executive overreach. Referenced Works: The U.S. Constitution: Article II: Presidential powers. 14th Amendment: Citizenship clause.

People affected by the wildfires in Los Angeles are only just starting to get a handle on what it's going to mean to rebuild their lives and mend their broken communities. And it's going to take a long time. We spend time with neighbors in Altadena and Pasadena who are coming together and relying on each other. One of those neighbors is Steven Cuevas. He's The California Report's former LA Bureau Chief, and he lives in Altadena. Thankfully his house survived, but he's been talking to folks in his community every day since the fire broke out about healing, helping and moving forward.   And one of the first executive orders Donald Trump signed this week could radically transform who gets to be a U.S. citizen. It would deny birthright citizenship to anyone who doesn't have at least one parent who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident. But California is fighting back. State Attorney General Rob Bonta filed our state's first lawsuit against the new administration to challenge that order. And on Thursday, a federal judge in Washington State temporarily froze that executive order. But that's only short-term, and the legal battle between the states and the federal government will continue. The government recognizing that all babies born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens runs deep in our history. One hundred and twenty-nine years ago, a Chinese American man who was born in San Francisco took the U.S. government to court after officials denied him entry into his own country. His name was Wong Kim Ark, and as KQED's Carlos Cabrera-Lomelí explains, his victory back in 1898 might make it much harder for Trump to win this legal battle.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, we offer the full case against anchor-baby jurisprudence. I'm joined by Amy Swearer, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, who has written scholarly papers showing conclusively that the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment was not adopting unqualified birthright citizenship for foreigners and most certainly not for illegal aliens and temporary visitors. The entire philosophy of citizenship, both pre- and post-adoption of the 14th Amendment, was built upon consent and allegiance. Amy explains why Wong Kim Ark expresses a false view of history but at the same time is clear that birthright citizenship cannot apply to those here against the national consent.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jeff and Phil welcome Eileen Chow, Professor and Director of Graduate Studies at Duke University's Asian/Pacific Studies Institute, and Ava Chin, CUNY professor and author of Mott Street: A Chinese American Family's Story of Exclusion and Homecoming, to talk about birthright citizenship, a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, now under attack (again) by the Trump administration. They talk about their anger in this moment, who is really under attack -- not rich white folks! -- in this latest attempt to revoke birthright citizenship, the landmark precedent set by United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and why the lessons of history must be constantly learned and re-learned.

This Day in Legal History: Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.On January 24, 1916, the United States Supreme Court issued a pivotal decision in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. This case arose after Frank Brushaber, a shareholder of Union Pacific Railroad, filed suit against the company to challenge the federal income tax imposed on its earnings. Brushaber argued that the tax violated the Constitution by not being apportioned among the states in accordance with Article I, Section 9. His challenge directly questioned the recently ratified 16th Amendment, which granted Congress the authority to tax incomes without apportionment.In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Edward Douglass White rejected Brushaber's claims, affirming that the 16th Amendment eliminated the requirement for income taxes to be apportioned among the states. The Court emphasized that the amendment did not create a new power of taxation but clarified Congress's authority to levy such taxes directly.This decision was a turning point in U.S. legal and financial history, solidifying the federal government's ability to collect income taxes as a primary source of revenue. It set the stage for the modern tax system and allowed for the growth of federal programs funded through taxation. By resolving disputes surrounding the 16th Amendment, Brushaber helped ensure the stability of income taxation as a legal and constitutional practice.A federal judge in Seattle has temporarily blocked a controversial executive order issued by President Donald Trump seeking to end birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. The order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” denies citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents lack legal status, are in the country temporarily, or if both parents fail to meet citizenship or residency criteria. This policy would leave thousands of American-born children stateless, without access to federal benefits, or documentation like passports, effectively excluding them from many civic rights and responsibilities.Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour declared the order "blatantly unconstitutional," citing the clear language of the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent, such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which reaffirmed birthright citizenship regardless of parental status. The executive order, effective February 19, 2025, has drawn multiple lawsuits from states and advocacy groups. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, joined by Oregon, Illinois, and Arizona, among others, emphasized that the order could deprive an estimated 150,000 children nationally of citizenship annually. This includes 4,000 children in Washington state alone.The order also demands that federal agencies refuse to issue documents recognizing citizenship to these individuals, which state officials argue oversteps presidential authority and contradicts constitutional protections. Plaintiffs highlight significant harm to state-funded healthcare, education, and welfare programs, as federal support for these services is tied to recognized citizenship status. The ruling echoes previous legal challenges to Trump-era policies, such as the blocked travel bans, underscoring judicial limits on executive power in shaping immigration and constitutional rights​​.Judge in Seattle blocks Trump order on birthright citizenship nationwideUS judge temporarily blocks Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the government to enforce the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), requiring millions of businesses to disclose their beneficial ownership to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The Court stayed an injunction that had blocked the law's enforcement, enabling the government to proceed while litigation continues in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral arguments scheduled for March 25. However, the January 13 filing deadline remains suspended.Justice Neil Gorsuch supported the stay, suggesting the Court resolve the legality of nationwide injunctions in such cases. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing the government hadn't demonstrated urgency for immediate implementation. The CTA mandates most U.S. businesses incorporated before 2024—and approximately five million new annual incorporations—to report ownership details, with noncompliance subject to penalties. FinCEN estimates that 32.6 million entities will need to comply, though 10 million have already submitted information voluntarily.The CTA aims to combat financial crimes by curbing the misuse of anonymous shell companies, a measure supported by transparency advocates. Critics, including businesses and advocacy groups, argue the law infringes on constitutional rights. Texas Top Cop Shop Inc., represented by the Center for Individual Rights, has challenged the law's constitutionality.  The law's enforcement has been turbulent, with multiple court rulings and delayed deadlines. FinCEN has encouraged voluntary reporting during this period, warning of fines of $500 per day for noncompliance if enforcement resumes. Meanwhile, businesses and advisors have been urged to preemptively file to avoid potential technical issues when mandatory compliance takes effect.Supreme Court Allows Corporate Transparency Act Enforcement (1)President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 23, 2025, creating a cryptocurrency working group tasked with drafting new regulations and exploring the establishment of a national cryptocurrency stockpile. The order aims to overhaul U.S. digital asset policy, a key promise from Trump's campaign. It protects banking services for crypto companies, bans the creation of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and pushes for clear regulatory frameworks for digital assets, including stablecoins.The order also directs the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to rescind guidance that had imposed high costs on companies safeguarding crypto assets, a move welcomed by the industry. Venture capitalist and former PayPal executive David Sacks was named chair of the working group, which includes leaders from the Treasury Department, SEC, and Commodity Futures Trading Commission.This directive marks a shift from the previous administration's stricter stance on cryptocurrencies, which included lawsuits against major exchanges like Coinbase and Binance for alleged violations of U.S. law. Industry leaders and policymakers applauded the move, viewing it as a significant step toward mainstream adoption of digital assets and the development of consistent regulations.  The executive order also mentions evaluating the creation of a digital asset stockpile potentially sourced from cryptocurrencies seized by law enforcement, though details on its implementation remain unclear. Bitcoin's price reached record highs earlier in the week, reflecting investor optimism over Trump's pro-crypto administration.Trump orders crypto working group to draft new regulations, explore national stockpile | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach. Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach (1732–1795), often referred to as the "Bückeburg Bach," was the ninth son of Johann Sebastian Bach and a distinguished composer in his own right. Born in Leipzig, Johann Christoph Friedrich grew up immersed in music under the tutelage of his father, yet he developed a unique style that bridged the Baroque and Classical eras. He spent most of his career at the court of Schaumburg-Lippe in Bückeburg, where he served as Konzertmeister and later as Kapellmeister. His music, characterized by elegance and charm, often reflected the tastes of the emerging Classical period while retaining the counterpoint and depth of his father's influence.Bach composed a variety of works, including symphonies, keyboard pieces, and chamber music, yet his output remains relatively underappreciated compared to his more famous siblings, such as Carl Philipp Emanuel and Wilhelm Friedemann. Johann Christoph Friedrich passed away on January 26, 1795, leaving behind a legacy of compositions that deserve wider recognition.For this week's closing theme, we've chosen his Flute Sonata in D minor, HW VIII/3.1 - I. Allegretto non troppo, arranged for trumpet, cello, and harpsichord. This arrangement brings new energy to Bach's graceful and lyrical lines, blending the interplay of the trumpet's bright tones with the rich warmth of the cello and the intricate textures of the harpsichord. The Allegretto non troppo exemplifies Johann Christoph Friedrich's ability to balance expressive melodies with delicate intricacies, creating music that is both accessible and profound. As we remember his contributions to music on the anniversary of his passing, let this piece inspire reflection on the enduring artistry of the Bach family.Without further ado, Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach's Flute Sonata in D minor, HW VIII/3.1 - I. Allegretto non troppo, enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

With President (boy, that sounds good...) Trump's EO stopping birthright citizenship, the predictable legal noise has begun. A judge has declared it unconstitutional, and others are sure to follow. In other courts, we should expect a different answer. Ultimately the Supreme Court will make the decision.We discuss the key issue in the 14th Amendment. What does, "subject to the jurisdiction of" mean?

Most of us know about birthright citizenship, but not many people have ever heard of Wong Kim Ark and the landmark Supreme Court decision that decided both his fate and the fate of a U.S. immigration policy that endures to this day.This is the case that solidified the Fourteenth Amendment as we understand it today.    CLICK HERE: Visit our website to see all of our episodes, donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more! To see Civics 101 in book form, check out A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works by Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice, featuring illustrations by Tom Toro.Check out our other weekly NHPR podcast, Outside/In - we think you'll love it!

This episode is presented by Create A Video – The legal arguments over "birthright citizenship" have existed for decades. And, now thanks to an executive order by President Donald Trump, the courts are going to address the precedent of the Supreme Court case involving Wong Kim Ark from 1898. Subscribe to the podcast at: https://ThePetePod.com/ All the links to Pete's Prep are free: https://patreon.com/petekalinershow Media Bias Check: If you choose to subscribe, get 15% off here! Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.comGet exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Cuba Suspended from OASOn January 22, 1962, the Organization of American States (OAS) took the historic step of suspending Cuba from its membership. This decision followed the Cuban Revolution, which saw Fidel Castro's government align itself with communist ideologies and the Soviet Union, marking a stark departure from the democratic and anti-communist principles upheld by the OAS. The suspension, supported by 14 member states against six dissenting votes, highlighted Cold War tensions and the fear of communist influence spreading across the Americas. It marked the first time the OAS had taken such a measure against a member nation, emphasizing the geopolitical divide between the United States and Soviet-aligned nations.The resolution to suspend Cuba was rooted in Article 8 of the OAS Charter, which mandated respect for representative democracy as a condition of membership. Cuba's embrace of communism and its growing ties with the USSR, particularly during events like the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis, deepened the rift with its neighbors. The suspension effectively isolated Cuba from multilateral political cooperation within the Americas but did little to curtail its growing influence among leftist movements globally.Efforts to reintegrate Cuba into the OAS came decades later. On June 3, 2009, the OAS voted to lift the suspension, acknowledging changing political landscapes and calls for normalization. However, Cuba immediately rejected the offer, citing its disinterest in rejoining the organization. The Cuban government viewed the OAS as a tool of U.S. hegemony and incompatible with its principles. The 1962 suspension remains a critical moment in the history of inter-American relations, illustrating the enduring complexities of ideology and diplomacy during the Cold War.Twenty-two Democratic-led states, the District of Columbia, and San Francisco filed lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump's executive order eliminating birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. The lawsuits, filed in federal courts in Boston, Seattle, and Maryland, argue that the order violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.The lawsuits emphasize the constitutional foundation of birthright citizenship, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which upheld citizenship rights for children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents. Plaintiffs assert that Trump's order represents an unconstitutional overreach of presidential authority and an attempt to bypass established constitutional and legal principles.If implemented, the order would leave over 150,000 children born annually without citizenship, rendering them stateless and depriving them of rights such as voting, working lawfully, and accessing federal benefits like Medicaid. States also face increased financial and administrative burdens, including the loss of federal funding for healthcare and education programs that are tied to citizenship status.Among the plaintiffs are civil rights groups, immigrant advocacy organizations, and an expectant mother with temporary protected status. The lawsuits seek declaratory and injunctive relief, aiming to prevent the enforcement of what they call a flagrantly unconstitutional policy. Early hearings on temporary restraining orders are scheduled in some jurisdictions, marking this as one of the first major legal battles of Trump's administration​.22 Democratic-led states sue over Trump's birthright citizenship order | ReutersPresident Donald Trump's executive order delaying enforcement of a bipartisan law banning TikTok has plunged the platform into legal uncertainty. The law, passed with overwhelming support in Congress and signed by President Joe Biden, required TikTok's Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest the platform by January 19. It also imposed heavy penalties—$5,000 per user—on service providers like Apple and Google for noncompliance.Trump's order pauses enforcement for 75 days and directs the Justice Department to assure service providers that they won't face liability during this period. However, legal experts argue the order offers limited assurance. Executive orders cannot override duly enacted laws, and courts generally do not view such directives as binding. Moreover, the president retains the authority to alter the order or enforce the law selectively, adding to the uncertainty.This action marks a rare instance of a president attempting to circumvent a law passed by both houses of Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. Legal analysts note that while Congress could sue to enforce the law, courts might dismiss such a case as a political question or national security issue. Meanwhile, service providers are exposed to billions in potential penalties and shareholder lawsuits if they defy the law based on Trump's directive.Despite the pause, TikTok remains unavailable on major U.S. app stores, reflecting the precarious legal and financial risks for service providers caught between compliance with federal law and Trump's temporary reprieve. This legal limbo underscores tensions between the executive branch, Congress, and the tech industry over the regulation of foreign-owned platforms.Trump executive order leaves TikTok in legal limbo, for now | ReutersPresident Donald Trump issued an executive order revoking the authority of the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to enforce diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives among federal contractors. The OFCCP, which oversees compliance with anti-discrimination laws for companies receiving federal funds, had required contractors to develop affirmative action programs and address workforce disparities based on gender, race, and other protected characteristics.Trump's order mandates the OFCCP immediately stop promoting affirmative action or workforce diversity measures. It also requires contractors to certify within 90 days that they are not implementing DEI programs deemed discriminatory under federal civil rights law. Additionally, the order redefines DEI initiatives as a potential form of illegal discrimination and encourages private companies to abandon such programs.The president's actions rescinded Executive Order 11246, a landmark 1965 order that established the OFCCP's affirmative action enforcement framework. Trump also repealed EO 13672, which protected federal contractor employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity—protections that were later recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court under Title VII.This move is part of Trump's broader rollback of DEI policies, including prior executive orders eliminating diversity programs in federal agencies and restricting the legal definition of gender. Critics argue these changes undermine civil rights protections, while supporters claim they prevent reverse discrimination. The order creates significant uncertainty for federal contractors navigating compliance and DEI program implementation.Trump Guts Contractor Watchdog's Anti-Discrimination Power (1)In my column for Bloomberg this week, a discussion of religious exemptions for unemployment taxes.The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to address a pivotal question of tax policy and religious exemptions in a case involving Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB). The organization, affiliated with the Catholic Church, argues it should be exempt from paying unemployment taxes because of its religious connection, despite providing social services that are fundamentally secular, such as job placement for individuals with disabilities and daily living assistance. This case raises concerns about fairness in the nonprofit sector. Granting CCB a tax exemption would create an uneven playing field, where secular organizations performing identical services face higher tax burdens. Such an outcome risks distorting the marketplace of charitable organizations and undermines the principle of equal obligations for entities engaging in similar work. The implications extend far beyond this case. A ruling in favor of CCB could incentivize other religiously affiliated organizations to seek similar exemptions, potentially leading to widespread abuse of the tax system. Hospitals, schools, and social service agencies with religious ties might claim exemptions for services indistinguishable from those provided by secular counterparts, further eroding tax equity and integrity.The core of the issue lies in the distinction between genuinely religious activities and secular services provided under religious affiliation. Exempting organizations like CCB shifts the financial burden of public goods, such as unemployment insurance, onto other employers, including secular nonprofits, weakening their ability to serve the public effectively. Additionally, it blurs the boundary between secular and religious activities, making tax exemptions a potential tool for avoidance rather than a recognition of genuine religious exercise.This case also highlights the challenge of determining what qualifies for a religious exemption. While proponents argue that no organization should have to prove its religiosity, some oversight is necessary to prevent abuse and maintain fairness. Without such standards, exemptions could devolve into unchecked privileges for organizations with tenuous religious affiliations.Ultimately, the Court must balance respecting religious liberty with upholding public responsibilities. Preserving the Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling against CCB would protect the integrity of the tax system, ensure fairness among nonprofits, and maintain a clear distinction between secular and religious activities while reinforcing the shared obligations of all public-serving entities.Supreme Court Must Ensure All Charities Get Fair Treatment This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Donald Trump has promised to cancel birthright citizenship on Day one. But can he do that? In a word, no. We have a deep dive on the very clear law of birthright citizenship in this country (and all the ways Trump will try and ignore it). We also break down yesterday's decision and order from New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan that presidential immunity does not retroactively invalidate Trump's 34 felony convictions in New York. Links: ABC Bends The Knee https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/abc-bends-the-knee Trump ruling denying immunity NY https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25459328/merchan-immunity-ruling.pdf Trump announcement re birthright citizenship https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-day-one-executive-order-ending-citizenship-for-children-of-illegals-and-outlawing-birth-tourism U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765 Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod

OA1094 - Denaturalization and an executive order revoking birthright citizenship for children of undocumented parents have both been in the news a lot recently, and Matt would like everyone to take a breath and do some realistic risk assessment. We review what it actually takes to denaturalize someone under our current system, and what it would take for a majority of even this Supreme Court to say that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't say exactly what it says.  Departure Statement of Wong Kim Ark, National Archives San Francisco U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898) Trump announcement on birthright citizenship executive order, Agenda 47 (2024) Birthright Citizens: a History of Race and Rights in Antebellum History, Martha Jones (2018) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

This Day in Legal History: Supreme Court Limits Chinese Exclusion Act On March 28, 1898, the United States Supreme Court made a groundbreaking decision in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, fundamentally altering the landscape of immigration and citizenship law in America. The Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrants, was indeed a U.S. citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. This ruling came during a time when anti-Chinese sentiment was high, and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was in full force, prohibiting the immigration of Chinese laborers.The case highlighted the tension between immigration policies based on racial exclusions and the constitutional principle of jus soli (right of the soil), which guarantees citizenship to almost all individuals born on U.S. soil. By affirming Wong Kim Ark's citizenship, the Supreme Court set a precedent that citizenship by birthright was not to be abridged based on race, ethnicity, or the national origins of one's parents. This decision was a critical counter to the prevailing policies of the time, which sought to limit the rights and freedoms of Chinese immigrants and their descendants.The ruling also underscored the importance of the 14th Amendment in expanding civil rights, demonstrating its role not just in the context of African American rights post-Civil War, but also in protecting the rights of other minorities. United States v. Wong Kim Ark remains a cornerstone of constitutional jurisprudence, reinforcing the principle that the Constitution protects all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their ancestry. This case is often cited in contemporary discussions on citizenship, immigration, and the rights of individuals under the U.S. Constitution, showcasing its lasting impact on American legal history.On March 27, 2024, a California state judge recommended that John Eastman, former personal lawyer to Donald Trump and his co-defendant in a Georgia criminal case, be disbarred for his attempts to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election results. Judge Yvette Roland cited violations of California attorney ethics rules, emphasizing Eastman's deceit in his campaign against Joe Biden's victory, and described his actions as lacking in legal and factual foundation. The California Supreme Court will ultimately decide Eastman's professional fate, with his lawyer defending his actions as based on legal precedents and scholarly research.Eastman, also facing charges in Georgia for efforts to challenge the election outcome, had advocated for then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes during the Congressional certification process. Despite these efforts, Pence denied having the constitutional authority to do so. Furthermore, Eastman represented Trump in an unsuccessful Supreme Court challenge to the election results and participated in a rally that preceded the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.The case against Eastman is part of broader legal and ethics investigations into several attorneys associated with Trump's legal team's 2020 election challenges, including Rudy Giuliani and Jeffrey Clark, both of whom are facing their own set of legal and disciplinary challenges. These cases underscore the ongoing legal repercussions for individuals involved in disputing the 2020 election results.Ex-Trump lawyer Eastman should be disbarred, California judge rules | ReutersLaw firm lateral hiring experienced a significant decline last year, falling 35% across all lawyer ranks, with associate hires dropping by 43% and partner moves by 10%, as reported by the National Association for Law Placement (NALP). This downturn, marking the second consecutive year of reduced law firm recruitment, reflects a deceleration in demand from corporate clients, leading to layoffs and decreased recruiting targets among major law firms. The pandemic-era surge in demand has tapered off, prompting firms to reassess their hiring strategies, especially in building associate ranks. Legal recruiters attribute much of the hiring decline to a slowdown in corporate practices, despite a slight increase in litigation roles.The industry's response to reduced workloads has been cautious, influenced by previous cycles of rapid hiring followed by stagnation. Although partner hiring was less affected due to their ability to bring portable business, associate hiring aligns more closely with overall demand fluctuations. Recent months have seen a modest uptick in hiring activity, particularly in finance-related roles, suggesting firms are preparing for a gradual increase in lateral hiring. However, firms have also scaled back on the sizes of their summer classes, indicating a conservative outlook for the coming years. This cautious approach is driven by the anticipation of a continued lull in demand, with expectations of further layoffs and quick decisions on terminations for any performance issues.Law Firm Hiring Plummets 35% Amid Layoffs, Slow Demand (2)Chemours Co., a Delaware-based chemical company that was spun-off DuPont in 2015, is currently under investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) due to concerns regarding its accounting practices. This probe was initiated after Chemours took the drastic step of placing its CEO, chief financial officer, and controller on leave following an internal review into the company's financial reporting and management practices. The internal investigation, triggered by an anonymous tip to the company's ethics hotline, specifically examined how the company managed its working capital and the potential impact on incentive plans, as well as certain practices not aligning with US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).In early March, Chemours disclosed findings that indicated senior executives had manipulated the company's free cash flow figures in the fourth quarter of 2023. This manipulation involved delaying payments to vendors and accelerating the collection of receivables, actions that artificially enhanced the metrics used to calculate their bonuses. This serious revelation came as part of an ongoing effort by Chemours to address and rectify the identified accounting issues, with the company openly cooperating with the SEC and the DOJ's requests for information related to the Audit Committee's Internal Review and subsequent SEC filings. The situation marks a significant corporate governance and accountability challenge for Chemours, spotlighting the importance of ethical financial management practices.Chemours Faces DOJ, SEC Accounting Probe Amid Shakeup at Top (1)Following the collapse of Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge due to a collision with the container ship Dali, the ship's owner, operator, and charterer are anticipated to face lawsuits for the resulting deaths and injuries. However, legal experts point out that U.S. maritime law may significantly limit the liability of the involved companies, including Grace Ocean Pte Ltd, Synergy Marine Group, and Maersk. U.S. legal principles, stemming from a 1927 Supreme Court ruling, generally preclude recovery of purely economic damages from maritime incidents, meaning the city of Baltimore and affected businesses cannot recover losses related to the port closure or bridge damage through litigation against the ship's owners and operators.Claims are likely to focus on personal injuries, deaths, and physical damage or loss, with potential lawsuits expected to be filed in federal court. Victims might seek to "arrest" the ship to keep it within jurisdiction during litigation. Economic losses might instead be covered by insurance, with analysts predicting claims could reach up to $4 billion, potentially setting a record for shipping insurance losses.The tragedy's limited human toll, attributed to the halting of traffic before the collapse, contrasts with the significant legal and financial aftermath. Maritime law allows for suing the ship itself and limits owner liability to the ship's value unless proven at fault, raising questions about the Dali's condition and previous inspections. Unlike state laws, maritime law does not cap non-economic damages in wrongful death cases, offering a unique legal pathway for the victims' families.Lawsuits over Baltimore bridge collapse likely, though limited, lawyers say | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Paper Son: Chinese American Citizen.  Chinese immigration to America was unique for various reasons.  All of this is the subject of my new series. I begin with the historical account of early American naturalization and immigration events, politics, and jurisprudence.  From the early years I work through and discuss first the Gold Rush and then the construction of the intercontinental railroad to the onslaught of Chinese immigration into the United States. Eventually leading to violence, exclusion, and deportation of Chinese persons.  All this finally led to the United States Government's acknowledgement and apology.  Including a recognition of Chinese American contributions. The discussion about naturalization and immigration inevitably leads to the questions of (1) who should be an American; and (2) what is an American?Support the show

Amanda Frost, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law and author of "You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers" joins Democracy Nerd to discuss with Jefferson the history of citizenship stripping in the United States. The discussion delves into the intricate history of citizenship stripping, unraveling key legislative acts and Supreme Court cases that have shaped this complex narrative. Along with the landmark Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court--which stripped citizenship of all Black people in the United States--and the Expatriation Act of 1907, Amanda provides insight on the various legal precedents that have influenced the concept of citizenship, including Wong Kim Ark's pivotal Supreme Court case that solidified the notion of "birthright citizenship" in the United States, a foundational principle that has played a crucial role in shaping the nation's identity. Amanda also discusses the story of Ethel Coope Mackenzie, a California suffragist who saw her citizenship stripped after marrying a native-born Scotsman, ultimately failing in an appeal to the Supreme Court which unanimously decided to not restore her American citizenship. Throughout the conversation, Amanda highlights the interconnected relationship between the promise of citizenship and waves of immigration, underscoring how this promise has historically fueled the influx of diverse populations, contributing to the transformation of the United States into an economic powerhouse. The episode weaves together legal history, individual stories, and broader socio-economic trends to offer a comprehensive understanding of the intricate tapestry of citizenship in the United States.

In August of 1895, a ship called the SS Coptic approached the coast of Northern California. On that boat was a passenger from San Francisco, a young man named Wong Kim Ark. He was returning home after visiting his wife and child in China, and he'd taken similar trips before. But when the ship docked, officials told him he couldn't get off. The customs agent barred him according to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants. Though Wong Kim Ark had been born in the U.S. and lived his whole life here, the agent said he was not a citizen. U.S. history, politics, and culture is deeply linked to East Asian countries like China, South Korea, and Taiwan. This month, we're telling some of those stories, in our series "Superpower." Today, the story of Wong Kim Ark, whose epic fight to be recognized as a citizen in his own country led to a Supreme Court decision affirming birthright citizenship for all.

The Chinese Exclusion Act is one of our most undiscussed tragedies. Despite the bad, Chinese immigrants pushed through to help shapes these United States. Today's episode crosses paths with Bruce Lee, Teddy Roosevelt, Chester A. Arthur, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Bing Cherry, the Valencia Orange, the Citizenship Clause and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, Oldsmobile, the TaiPing Revolution, the Gold Rush, the Transcontinental Railroad, Wong Kim Ark, Grover Cleveland, the NY Sun and the Statue of Liberty.

We've partnered with Immigrantly and are excited to share an episode from their show! Immigrantly is a weekly podcast hosted by rights activist and social entrepreneur Saadia Khan that bears witness to the extraordinariness of the immigrant experience Today we have a fellow podcaster in our midst. Ramtin Arablouei is the co-host and co-producer of NPR's podcast Throughline. This show explores history through creative, immersive storytelling designed to reintroduce history to new audiences. Ramtin embodies this perspective personally and professionally. Born in Iran, he immigrated to the U.S. with his family as a child and later graduated from St. Mary's College of Maryland with a B.A. in psychology and history. Along with hosting and producing, Ramtin is also a trained audio engineer and has written and mixed music for many award-winning podcasts, including TED Radio Hour and Hidden Brain. Ramtin generously offered his time to us to talk about an episode he reported back in early June this year called "By Accident of Birth." It's about the story of Wong Kim Ark, who, after returning from a trip to China in 1895, was barred from re-entering the country according to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants. His subsequent legal battles culminated in the 1897 Supreme Court case, the United States. v. Wong Kim Ark: the case that would forever change the path of American immigration law and play a pivotal role in the ongoing battle over who gets to be a citizen of the United States.

Welcome to Season 3, Episode 12. This is an #ICYMI (In Case You Missed It) Encore Episode. Originally airing on Season 2, Episode 13, this episode is all about the U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark. Do you know why people born in the United States get birthright citizenship? Most textbooks point to the 14th Amendment as the reason for this, but the U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark ruling solidified this right. In this episode, we discuss the history of this landmark ruling. For previous episodes and information, please visit our site at https://asianamericanhistory101.libsyn.com or social media links at http://castpie.com/AAHistory101. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, email us at info@aahistory101.com.

Emile, Sohrab, Helen, and Micah unpack President Biden's divisive primetime speech in front of Independence Hall. Plus, a tragic week of violence in Memphis, and an energy crisis looms in Europe.   Picks of the week:   Emile: Big Tech or Little Kids?, Harry Scherer Sohrab: Henry C. Carey's Practical Economics, David A. Cowan Helen: Overturn United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Michael Anton Micah: FERC Gaslights America, Michael Buschbacher & Taylor Myers, and Behind the "Grid Emergency', Helen Andrews  

Today we have a fellow podcaster in our midst. Ramtin Arablouei is the co-host and co-producer of NPR's podcast Throughline. This show explores history through creative, immersive storytelling designed to reintroduce history to new audiences.  Ramtin embodies this perspective personally and professionally. Born in Iran, he immigrated to the U.S. with his family as a child and later graduated from St. Mary's College of Maryland with a B.A. in psychology and history. Along with hosting and producing, Ramtin is also a trained audio engineer and has written and mixed music for many award-winning podcasts, including TED Radio Hour and Hidden Brain. Ramtin generously offered his time to us to talk about an episode he reported back in early June this year called "By Accident of Birth." It's about the story of Wong Kim Ark, who, after returning from a trip to China in 1895, was barred from re-entering the country according to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants. His subsequent legal battles culminated in the 1897 Supreme Court case, the United States. v. Wong Kim Ark:  the case that would forever change the path of American immigration law and play a pivotal role in the ongoing battle over who gets to be a citizen of the United States. Libsyn is the sponsor of this episode Click on Libsyn.com and use code Friend to get your discount! Join the conversation: Instagram @immigrantlypod | Twitter @immigrantly_pod |  Please share the love and leave us a review to help more people find us! Host & Executive Producer: Saadia Khan I Associate Producer: Kinza Muzahir I Content Writer: Sana Khan & Yudi Liu I Sound Designer & Editor: Manni Simon I Immigrantly Theme Music: Evan Ray Suzuki I Other Music: Epidemic Sounds    

In August of 1895, a ship called the SS Coptic approached the coast of Northern California. On that boat was a passenger from San Francisco, a young man named Wong Kim Ark who was returning home after visiting his wife and child in China. He'd taken trips like this before, and expected to come back to the city he was born in, to his life and friends. But when the ship docked, officials told him he couldn't get off. The customs agent barred him according to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants. Though Wong Kim Ark had been born in the U.S. and lived his whole life there, the agent said he was not a citizen. Wong was moved from steamer to steamer for months. But he was able to contact representatives from the Chinese Six Companies, a consortium of Chinese business owners that often hired legal representation for people subject to discrimination. His subsequent legal battles culminated in the 1897 Supreme Court case United States. v. Wong Kim Ark: a case that would forever change the path of American immigration law, and play a pivotal role in the ongoing battle over who gets to be a citizen of the United States.

We talk about Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton gun fight statues, SoJo Spa, heatwaves, the slow-motion unraveling of the United States, office politics, terrible managers, the emotional con of linking work with passion, Elon Musk as bad boss, cargo cults, Critical Race Theory is real and Gabe is Brainwashing your kids, Wong Kim Ark and the Supreme Court Case that gave us birthright citizenship, and how do we get rid of school shooters without taking my duck hunting rifle? We now have a Patreon: Join to enter our Discord IG: @gabepac1 twitter: @gabe_pacheco IG: @sameermon twitter: @sameermon Twitter @halalcartels MUSIC by SAREEN IG: @Sareenpatel @brownprivilege Art by @elizabitcrusher

This week in La Voz en Breve, journalist Mariel Fiori has a show on immigration and culture. SUNY New Paltz literature professor Adolfo Béjar Lara returned with his column Books for the People to tell us about Yuri Herrera's “Signs that will precede the end of the world”. Much of the work of this contemporary Mexican writer is available in our local libraries. In addition, Bejar Lara invited us to attend on Tuesday, May 17 at 6:30 pm the Newburgh Library for the Histories of Latin America. This time the theme will be the story of the Uruguayan writer Eduardo Acevedo Díaz, "From the trunk of an Ombú". Learn more, and get a copy of the story, at newburghlibrary.libcal.com/event/9169656. Also, in her column Speaking from the Heart, What We Weren't Told, teacher Maritza Del Razo continued to teach about May, Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage month. Del Razo told us the story of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States in 1873, but because he was of Chinese descent, he was once denied entry when returning from visiting his parents. Señales que precederán al fin del mundo y la historia de Wong Kim Ark Esta semana en La Voz en breve, la periodista Mariel Fiori tiene un programa de inmigración y cultura. Volvió el profesor de literatura de SUNY New Paltz, Adolfo Béjar Lara, con su columna Libros para la gente para hablarnos de las “Señales que precederán el fin del mundo” de Yuri Herrera. Mucha obra de este escritor mexicano contemporáneo se encuentra disponible en nuestras bibliotecas locales. Además, Bejar Lara nos invitó a asistir el martes 17 de mayo a las 6:30pm a la biblioteca de Newburgh para las Historias de Latinoamérica. Esta vez el tema será el cuento del escritor uruguayo Eduardo Acevedo Díaz, “Desde el tronco de un Ombú”. Más información, y conseguir una copia del cuento, en la página web newburghlibrary.libcal.com/event/9169656. Además, en su columna Hablando del corazón, lo que no nos contaron, la maestra Maritza Del Razo continuó enseñándonos sobre mayo, el mes de la Herencia de los Asiáticos Estadounidenses y de las Islas del Pacífico. Del Razo nos contó la historia de Wong Kim Ark, quien nació en los Estados Unidos en 1873, pero que por ser una persona de descendencia China, se le negó la entrada en una ocasión cuando regresaba de visitar a sus padres.

Welcome to Season 2, Episode 13! Do you know why people born in the United States get birthright citizenship? Most textbooks point to the 14th Amendment as the reason for this, but the U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark ruling solidified this right. In this episode, we discuss the history of this landmark ruling and also share some positive current events. In our second segment, we bring back What Are We Listening To? We talk about the podcast They Call Us Bruce as well as new music from Raveena and SASAMI. For previous episodes and information, please visit our site at https://asianamericanhistory101.libsyn.com or social media links at https://linktr.ee/AAHistory101. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, email us at info@1882media.com. Segments 00:26 News and Thoughts on Citizenship 04:55 The U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark 19:08 What Are We Listening To: They Call Us Bruce, Raveena, and SASAMI

Amanda Frost is a Harvard-educated lawyer who teaches in Washington, D.C. at American University. You are Not American is her first book. It looks at various moments in United States history where citizenship was debated and legislated in lasting ways. Some of the cases she examines are well known, such as the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, which ruled that African Americans had "no rights" that a "white man was bound to respect." Other cases--such as the Wong Kim Ark and Ruth Bryan Owen cases--ended better for those seeking citizenship. But You are Not American shows how often citizenship rights have come under attack and how often immigration and citizenship laws are tainted by overt racism, sexism, and xenophobia. 

All nations make rules -- through their constitutions, legislatures, bureaucratic practices – about who counts as a citizen. American by Birth examines the role of the Supreme Court – particularly a ruling from 1898 that is still precedent today. Wong Kim Ark v. United States interpreted the language of the 14th Amendment to answer whether a man born in the United States was a citizen. The Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark and held that the 14th Amendment extends to children of immigrants who were born in the United States. Using the work of legal scholars, political scientists, and historians, Drs. Julie L. Novkov and Carol Nackenoff provide an extended biography of Wong Kim Ark and the historic 1898 landmark case – but also a biography of US Citizenship from the colonies to the present. American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship (UP of Kansas, 2021) concludes with an impressive chapter that contextualizes birthright citizenship globally and within the context of American politics and scholarly debates – with an emphasis on the vulnerability of birthright citizenship to indirect and direct change. Dr. Julie L. Novkov is Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and interim dean of Rockefeller college at the University at Albany, SUNY. She is the author of Racial Union: Law, Intimacy, and the White State in Alabama, 1865-1954 (UMichigan, 2008). Dr. Carol Nackenoff is Richter Professor emeritus of Political Science at Swarthmore College. She is the author of The Fictional Republic: Horatio Alger and American Political Discourse (Oxford, 1994). They are also co-editors of Stating the Family: New Directions in the Study of American Politics (University Press of Kansas, 2020) and Statebuilding from the Margins: Between Reconstruction and the New Deal (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) Two resources mentioned in the podcast: Tian Atlas Xu's “Immigration Attorneys and Chinese Exclusion Law Enforcement: The Case of San Francisco, 1882–1930” and the symposium on American by Birth. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All nations make rules -- through their constitutions, legislatures, bureaucratic practices – about who counts as a citizen. American by Birth examines the role of the Supreme Court – particularly a ruling from 1898 that is still precedent today. Wong Kim Ark v. United States interpreted the language of the 14th Amendment to answer whether a man born in the United States was a citizen. The Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark and held that the 14th Amendment extends to children of immigrants who were born in the United States. Using the work of legal scholars, political scientists, and historians, Drs. Julie L. Novkov and Carol Nackenoff provide an extended biography of Wong Kim Ark and the historic 1898 landmark case – but also a biography of US Citizenship from the colonies to the present. American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship (UP of Kansas, 2021) concludes with an impressive chapter that contextualizes birthright citizenship globally and within the context of American politics and scholarly debates – with an emphasis on the vulnerability of birthright citizenship to indirect and direct change. Dr. Julie L. Novkov is Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and interim dean of Rockefeller college at the University at Albany, SUNY. She is the author of Racial Union: Law, Intimacy, and the White State in Alabama, 1865-1954 (UMichigan, 2008). Dr. Carol Nackenoff is Richter Professor emeritus of Political Science at Swarthmore College. She is the author of The Fictional Republic: Horatio Alger and American Political Discourse (Oxford, 1994). They are also co-editors of Stating the Family: New Directions in the Study of American Politics (University Press of Kansas, 2020) and Statebuilding from the Margins: Between Reconstruction and the New Deal (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) Two resources mentioned in the podcast: Tian Atlas Xu's “Immigration Attorneys and Chinese Exclusion Law Enforcement: The Case of San Francisco, 1882–1930” and the symposium on American by Birth. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/asian-american-studies

All nations make rules -- through their constitutions, legislatures, bureaucratic practices – about who counts as a citizen. American by Birth examines the role of the Supreme Court – particularly a ruling from 1898 that is still precedent today. Wong Kim Ark v. United States interpreted the language of the 14th Amendment to answer whether a man born in the United States was a citizen. The Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark and held that the 14th Amendment extends to children of immigrants who were born in the United States. Using the work of legal scholars, political scientists, and historians, Drs. Julie L. Novkov and Carol Nackenoff provide an extended biography of Wong Kim Ark and the historic 1898 landmark case – but also a biography of US Citizenship from the colonies to the present. American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship (UP of Kansas, 2021) concludes with an impressive chapter that contextualizes birthright citizenship globally and within the context of American politics and scholarly debates – with an emphasis on the vulnerability of birthright citizenship to indirect and direct change. Dr. Julie L. Novkov is Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and interim dean of Rockefeller college at the University at Albany, SUNY. She is the author of Racial Union: Law, Intimacy, and the White State in Alabama, 1865-1954 (UMichigan, 2008). Dr. Carol Nackenoff is Richter Professor emeritus of Political Science at Swarthmore College. She is the author of The Fictional Republic: Horatio Alger and American Political Discourse (Oxford, 1994). They are also co-editors of Stating the Family: New Directions in the Study of American Politics (University Press of Kansas, 2020) and Statebuilding from the Margins: Between Reconstruction and the New Deal (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) Two resources mentioned in the podcast: Tian Atlas Xu's “Immigration Attorneys and Chinese Exclusion Law Enforcement: The Case of San Francisco, 1882–1930” and the symposium on American by Birth. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

All nations make rules -- through their constitutions, legislatures, bureaucratic practices – about who counts as a citizen. American by Birth examines the role of the Supreme Court – particularly a ruling from 1898 that is still precedent today. Wong Kim Ark v. United States interpreted the language of the 14th Amendment to answer whether a man born in the United States was a citizen. The Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark and held that the 14th Amendment extends to children of immigrants who were born in the United States. Using the work of legal scholars, political scientists, and historians, Drs. Julie L. Novkov and Carol Nackenoff provide an extended biography of Wong Kim Ark and the historic 1898 landmark case – but also a biography of US Citizenship from the colonies to the present. American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship (UP of Kansas, 2021) concludes with an impressive chapter that contextualizes birthright citizenship globally and within the context of American politics and scholarly debates – with an emphasis on the vulnerability of birthright citizenship to indirect and direct change. Dr. Julie L. Novkov is Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and interim dean of Rockefeller college at the University at Albany, SUNY. She is the author of Racial Union: Law, Intimacy, and the White State in Alabama, 1865-1954 (UMichigan, 2008). Dr. Carol Nackenoff is Richter Professor emeritus of Political Science at Swarthmore College. She is the author of The Fictional Republic: Horatio Alger and American Political Discourse (Oxford, 1994). They are also co-editors of Stating the Family: New Directions in the Study of American Politics (University Press of Kansas, 2020) and Statebuilding from the Margins: Between Reconstruction and the New Deal (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) Two resources mentioned in the podcast: Tian Atlas Xu's “Immigration Attorneys and Chinese Exclusion Law Enforcement: The Case of San Francisco, 1882–1930” and the symposium on American by Birth. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

All nations make rules -- through their constitutions, legislatures, bureaucratic practices – about who counts as a citizen. American by Birth examines the role of the Supreme Court – particularly a ruling from 1898 that is still precedent today. Wong Kim Ark v. United States interpreted the language of the 14th Amendment to answer whether a man born in the United States was a citizen. The Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark and held that the 14th Amendment extends to children of immigrants who were born in the United States. Using the work of legal scholars, political scientists, and historians, Drs. Julie L. Novkov and Carol Nackenoff provide an extended biography of Wong Kim Ark and the historic 1898 landmark case – but also a biography of US Citizenship from the colonies to the present. American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship (UP of Kansas, 2021) concludes with an impressive chapter that contextualizes birthright citizenship globally and within the context of American politics and scholarly debates – with an emphasis on the vulnerability of birthright citizenship to indirect and direct change. Dr. Julie L. Novkov is Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and interim dean of Rockefeller college at the University at Albany, SUNY. She is the author of Racial Union: Law, Intimacy, and the White State in Alabama, 1865-1954 (UMichigan, 2008). Dr. Carol Nackenoff is Richter Professor emeritus of Political Science at Swarthmore College. She is the author of The Fictional Republic: Horatio Alger and American Political Discourse (Oxford, 1994). They are also co-editors of Stating the Family: New Directions in the Study of American Politics (University Press of Kansas, 2020) and Statebuilding from the Margins: Between Reconstruction and the New Deal (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) Two resources mentioned in the podcast: Tian Atlas Xu's “Immigration Attorneys and Chinese Exclusion Law Enforcement: The Case of San Francisco, 1882–1930” and the symposium on American by Birth. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

All nations make rules -- through their constitutions, legislatures, bureaucratic practices – about who counts as a citizen. American by Birth examines the role of the Supreme Court – particularly a ruling from 1898 that is still precedent today. Wong Kim Ark v. United States interpreted the language of the 14th Amendment to answer whether a man born in the United States was a citizen. The Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark and held that the 14th Amendment extends to children of immigrants who were born in the United States. Using the work of legal scholars, political scientists, and historians, Drs. Julie L. Novkov and Carol Nackenoff provide an extended biography of Wong Kim Ark and the historic 1898 landmark case – but also a biography of US Citizenship from the colonies to the present. American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship (UP of Kansas, 2021) concludes with an impressive chapter that contextualizes birthright citizenship globally and within the context of American politics and scholarly debates – with an emphasis on the vulnerability of birthright citizenship to indirect and direct change. Dr. Julie L. Novkov is Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and interim dean of Rockefeller college at the University at Albany, SUNY. She is the author of Racial Union: Law, Intimacy, and the White State in Alabama, 1865-1954 (UMichigan, 2008). Dr. Carol Nackenoff is Richter Professor emeritus of Political Science at Swarthmore College. She is the author of The Fictional Republic: Horatio Alger and American Political Discourse (Oxford, 1994). They are also co-editors of Stating the Family: New Directions in the Study of American Politics (University Press of Kansas, 2020) and Statebuilding from the Margins: Between Reconstruction and the New Deal (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) Two resources mentioned in the podcast: Tian Atlas Xu's “Immigration Attorneys and Chinese Exclusion Law Enforcement: The Case of San Francisco, 1882–1930” and the symposium on American by Birth. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

All nations make rules -- through their constitutions, legislatures, bureaucratic practices – about who counts as a citizen. American by Birth examines the role of the Supreme Court – particularly a ruling from 1898 that is still precedent today. Wong Kim Ark v. United States interpreted the language of the 14th Amendment to answer whether a man born in the United States was a citizen. The Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark and held that the 14th Amendment extends to children of immigrants who were born in the United States. Using the work of legal scholars, political scientists, and historians, Drs. Julie L. Novkov and Carol Nackenoff provide an extended biography of Wong Kim Ark and the historic 1898 landmark case – but also a biography of US Citizenship from the colonies to the present. American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship (UP of Kansas, 2021) concludes with an impressive chapter that contextualizes birthright citizenship globally and within the context of American politics and scholarly debates – with an emphasis on the vulnerability of birthright citizenship to indirect and direct change. Dr. Julie L. Novkov is Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and interim dean of Rockefeller college at the University at Albany, SUNY. She is the author of Racial Union: Law, Intimacy, and the White State in Alabama, 1865-1954 (UMichigan, 2008). Dr. Carol Nackenoff is Richter Professor emeritus of Political Science at Swarthmore College. She is the author of The Fictional Republic: Horatio Alger and American Political Discourse (Oxford, 1994). They are also co-editors of Stating the Family: New Directions in the Study of American Politics (University Press of Kansas, 2020) and Statebuilding from the Margins: Between Reconstruction and the New Deal (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) Two resources mentioned in the podcast: Tian Atlas Xu's “Immigration Attorneys and Chinese Exclusion Law Enforcement: The Case of San Francisco, 1882–1930” and the symposium on American by Birth. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

On September 19, 2020, Judge Laurel Beeler in San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction to stop the Trump Administration's executive order that would remove WeChat and its software support from U.S. app stores, effectively banning the Chinese "superapp." ****** In this special unlocked bonus, Jess, Diana, Chris, and Teen dive into the details of the executive orders against WeChat and TikTok, and contextualize the upcoming trial to keep WeChat in American cyberspace. Like US vs Wong Kim Ark and Yick Wo vs Hopkins, US WeChat Users Alliance vs Donald Trump recalls the underreported and under-appreciated heritage of Chinese American legal battles that defined American concepts of citizenship and civil rights. It will potentially be a Supreme Court case that will define the civil liberties of all Americans in the digital age. Please consider donating at: https://uswua.org/donations TWITTER: Teen (@mont_jiang) Chris (@JesuInToast) Diana (@discoveryduck) Jess (@cogitatotomato) REFERENCED RESOURCES: -NYTimes: "WeChat Ban Makes U.S.-China Standoff Personal" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/technology/wechat-ban-united-states-china.html -US WeChat Users Alliance Vs Donald Trump: https://chinaipr2.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/dkt.-01-complaint-for-declaratory-and-injunctive-relief-08-21-2020.pdf -US WeChat Users Alliance Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17470217/59/us-wechat-users-alliance/ -US vs Korematsu: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-supreme-courts-worst-decision-lives-on-in-2016-campaign -US vs Wong Kim Ark: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2018/10/30/birthright-citizenship-trump-inspired-history-lesson-th-amendment/ -Yick Wo vs Hopkins: https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=mjrl SUBMISSIONS & COMMENTS: editor.planamag@gmail.com EFPA Opening Theme: "Fuck Out My Face" by Ayekay (open.spotify.com/artist/16zQKaDN5XgHAhfOJHTigJ)

Most of us know about birthright citizenship, but not many people have ever heard of Wong Kim Ark and the landmark Supreme Court decision that decided both his fate and the fate of a U.S. immigration policy that endures to this day. This episode was originally produced for the Civics 101 podcast by New Hampshire Public Radio.

Most of us know about birthright citizenship, but not many people have ever heard of Wong Kim Ark and the landmark Supreme Court decision that decided both his fate and the fate of a U.S. immigration policy that endures to this day. Sign up for the Civics 101 newsletter

This is not a happy episode, really, unless you enjoy Andrew completely demolishing racist birtherism crap published in Newsweek about Kamala Harris. The author is the same racist asshole who, curiously enough, wrote this: Ted Cruz's Citizenship Makes Him Eligible to be President. Ted Cruz wasn't born in this country, but Kamala Harris was. I wonder what the difference is? Here to help debunk this racist crap is the 14th Amendment. Also Garrett Epps, The Citizenship Clause: A "Legislative History"; U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). The first segment is some things Andrew was wrong about.. and the main segment is a depressing deep dive on how John Roberts has successfully undermined reproductive rights with almost no one noticing. Dahlia Lithwick noticed though and wrote John Roberts' stealth attack on abortion rights in June Medical v. Russo just paid off. Andrew dives deeper into this and explains what happened in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo and how the 8th Circuit has capitalized on this.

TUX introduces the listeners’ favorite scandal STEPHANIE has ever done on Beyond Reproach, Episode 17: Wong Kim Ark & Chinese Exclusion.  STEPHANIE explores the little-known landmark Supreme Court Case, Wong Kim Ark vs The United States, it’s arguably one of the most overlooked civil rights cases in American History. Ark’s scandal is a vehicle to shed light on the much larger issue of the Chinese Exclusion Act, that time when the US banned an entire race. For additional source information for this story, to learn more about Beyond Reproach, and to pursue our online shop: SITE

In 2017, an anonymous individual named “Q” began posting on a public messaging board called 4chan about “Pizzagate,” a conspiracy theory alleging that a restaurant called Comet Ping Pong was really an underground child sex trafficking ring run by deep state political elites. Q quickly gained acclaim online after he continued posting unsubstantiated clues—what QAnon followers call “bread crumbs”—about a prophetic “Great Awakening” that is in store, when deep state Democrats will supposedly be held accountable for their “crimes.” On Tuesday, avowed QAnon sympathizer Marjorie Taylor Greene won a Republican congressional primary in Georgia. Beyond her avowal of QAnon, she is a 9/11 truther, has called black people “slaves” to the Democratic Party, and has characterized the 2018 House midterms “an Islamic invasion of our government.” What’s worse, the president congratulated her win on Twitter after her victory. Given Georgia’s 14th District is a reliably red district, she’s almost certainly headed toward Congress. What does this mean for the future of the GOP? David and Sarah have some thoughts. Be sure to listen to today’s episode to hear our podcast hosts discuss the new police officer body camera footage leading up to George Floyd’s killing, as well as the constitutional underpinnings of John Eastman’s Newsweek piece questioning Kamala Harris’ eligibility for office on birtherist grounds. Show Notes: -John Eastman’s Newsweek piece on Kamala Harris, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Thomas v. Lynch 5th circuit case, D.C. circuit case, statutory citizenship rights explainer. -Police officer body camera footage leading up to George Floyd’s murder. -Professor Ted Sampsell-Jones on the charges in the George Floyd case. -Pew Research Center polling on QAnon.

The Memory Palace is a proud member of Radiotopia, a collective of independently owned and operated podcasts. A note on shownotes. In a perfect world, you go into each episode of the Memory Palace knowing nothing about what's coming. It's pretentious, sure, but that's the intention. So, if you don't want any spoilers or anything, you can click play without reading ahead.

We cheers to the Martinez, gin-based spin on the Manhattan that predates the Martini. It is a must-try classic! Also discussed: Stephanie’s plants, STOOPITS, Beauty and the Beast, Tux does a swear, Lizzo breaks, Beyond Reproach: Racism Edition, Christopher Columbus, Ben Rosen on twitter, and Voltron. Stephanie explores the little-known landmark Supreme Court Case, Wong Kim Ark vs The United States, it’s arguably one of the most overlooked civil rights cases in American History. Ark’s scandal is a vehicle to shed light on the much larger issue of the Chinese Exclusion Act, that time when the US banned an entire race. Tux’s scandal centers upon that time in 2014 when the nation lost its collective shit over the color of the president’s suit because they were still pissed about the color of the president’s skin.  For source information for each story, to learn more about Beyond Reproach, and to pursue our brand new online shop: SITE

Birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment have been in the news recently. President Trump does not believe birthright citizenship is required by the 14th Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court discussed the issue in some detail in an 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The post The Law episode 56: U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark appeared first on Speakeasy Ideas.

Today's Rapid Response Friday takes a look at the recent Trump Administration memorandum "clarifying" the rules on military citizenship for children born to U.S. employees -- largely, those in the armed forces -- serving overseas. Is it as bad as you've heard? (Yes.) Is it actually worse than that? (Yes.) First, though, we continue to revisit the apportionment question discussed in Episode 307. Have we finally crowdsourced a solution? The answer may surprise you! After that, it's time for a deep dive into the latest policy manual update from the department of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services "clarifying" that servicemembers living overseas don't actually count as "living in the United States." Will this cause Trump-supporting military members to vote for Elizabeth Warren in 2020? (No.) Should it? (Yes.) Is it way, way worse than you could possibly imagine? Oh yes. After that, it's time for a very brief Andrew Was Wrong (the best kind!). Then, it's time for an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, in which we have... something approaching "Don't Take Legal Advice From A Podcast" Law? You won't want to miss this question involving a disgruntled landlord and a put-upon law student. Can Thomas break his losing streak? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We first covered the potential apportionment crisis in Episode 307. You can read the latest policy manual update from the department of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for yourself. The relevant legal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act are 8 U.S.C. § 1401, 8 U.S.C § 1431, and 8 U.S.C. § 1433. This is the August 15th, 2019 story about how the Trump administration continues to use the "out-of-wedlock" rule against LGBTQ couples. Finally, this is the garbage, racist National Review article on birthright citizenship, and this is U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S> 649 (1898). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

This week, fashion designer and tailor, Jessica Yuen, joins Sandie to tell the story of Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese-American who brought birthright citizenship to the Supreme Court when denied entry during the Chinese Exclusion Act. Before this, Sandie stalked Jessica as an audience member when she was on a panel for Asian-Americans in the arts. It sounds creepy, but a beautiful friendship actually forms...like Netflix's You. Kidding! Don't romanticize stalking, you guys. It's gross. Anyway, they talk about growing up as one of the only Chinese families on the block, and the guilt they live with in the often misunderstood realities of being in an interracial relationship.  ___ This episode is presented by Brick by Brick Studio (IG: @brickbybrickstudios). You can find Now In Color anywhere you get podcasts (IG: @nowincolorpodcast/ Twitter: @now_incolor)

“Every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there can be room for no complaint.” –Gouverneur Morris (believed to be primary author of the actual prose of Constitution), Constitutional Convention in 1787 This is one of my longest and most foundational podcasts. I trace back sovereignty, citizenship, and self-governance form our Founding through the 14th Amendment and subsequent court cases. I show how we are no longer a sovereign nation thanks to illegal immigration, judicial supremacy, and the mix of the two problems. Bookmark this as your definitive takedown of the feudal-era jus soli principle on birthright citizenship, conclusively proving why Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided and why even if we support that decision, it cannot be extended to illegal aliens. Our phony conservative legal scholars are playing the Left’s judicial black-magic game that we can never win.    Show Links Nothing Trumps consent and sovereignty  Here’s the truth about the courts and birthright citizenship TV scholars have citizenship backwards The dissenting opinion in Wong Kim Ark   Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 1898, Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese American, won a landmark Supreme Court case...

Filmmaker Anne Galisky joins UCSB’s Helen Morales for a discussion of her 2014 film 14: Dred Scott, Wong Kim Ark, & Vanessa Lopez. The director explains the process of locating family members of the individuals the film focuses on, scoring the film, and developing conversations about citizenship including birthright citizenship but also recent debates about the status of people who are already citizens. Subjects of the talk range from the risks of being publicly undocumented, the rhetorical significance of families and children in political arguments, and her own personal family’s story of immigration. By way of encouraging future activist documentarians, she stresses the importance of forming trusting relationships with the subjects of her documentaries. Series: "Carsey-Wolf Center" [Humanities] [Show ID: 33562]

Filmmaker Anne Galisky joins UCSB’s Helen Morales for a discussion of her 2014 film 14: Dred Scott, Wong Kim Ark, & Vanessa Lopez. The director explains the process of locating family members of the individuals the film focuses on, scoring the film, and developing conversations about citizenship including birthright citizenship but also recent debates about the status of people who are already citizens. Subjects of the talk range from the risks of being publicly undocumented, the rhetorical significance of families and children in political arguments, and her own personal family’s story of immigration. By way of encouraging future activist documentarians, she stresses the importance of forming trusting relationships with the subjects of her documentaries. Series: "Carsey-Wolf Center" [Humanities] [Show ID: 33562]

Filmmaker Anne Galisky joins UCSB’s Helen Morales for a discussion of her 2014 film 14: Dred Scott, Wong Kim Ark, & Vanessa Lopez. The director explains the process of locating family members of the individuals the film focuses on, scoring the film, and developing conversations about citizenship including birthright citizenship but also recent debates about the status of people who are already citizens. Subjects of the talk range from the risks of being publicly undocumented, the rhetorical significance of families and children in political arguments, and her own personal family’s story of immigration. By way of encouraging future activist documentarians, she stresses the importance of forming trusting relationships with the subjects of her documentaries. Series: "Carsey-Wolf Center" [Humanities] [Show ID: 33562]

Filmmaker Anne Galisky joins UCSB’s Helen Morales for a discussion of her 2014 film 14: Dred Scott, Wong Kim Ark, & Vanessa Lopez. The director explains the process of locating family members of the individuals the film focuses on, scoring the film, and developing conversations about citizenship including birthright citizenship but also recent debates about the status of people who are already citizens. Subjects of the talk range from the risks of being publicly undocumented, the rhetorical significance of families and children in political arguments, and her own personal family’s story of immigration. By way of encouraging future activist documentarians, she stresses the importance of forming trusting relationships with the subjects of her documentaries. Series: "Carsey-Wolf Center" [Humanities] [Show ID: 33562]

What’s your favorite case? It’s a difficult question, but in this episode Christian answers it: the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson that upheld racial apartheid under the “separate but equal” principle. Joe accuses him of cheating a bit, because Christian’s “favorite” is actually Justice Harlan’s celebrated solo dissent. Its greatness, though, does not lie in any sort of perfection. Severely flawed and yet great, at the same time. This show’s links: Plessy v. Ferguson, which you should scan through as bit, as recommended during the show Some background here and here on Homer Plessy and his act of civil disobedience Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Plessy v. Ferguson: Who Was Plessy? Justice Souter’s discussion of Plessy and the role of history in judging (watch from minute one until about minute fourteen) and his Harvard Commencement speech on Plessy United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which Harlan joined a dissent arguing that those children of Chinese citizens who are born in the United States should not receive citizenship; see here for a summary Gabriel Chin, The Plessy Myth: Justice Harlan and the Chinese Cases