Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment
The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - Sovereignty Over the Soil
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - British Citizenship
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Justice Story on Allegiance
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - The Claims of the Judicial Branch
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Rejection of Jus Sanguinis
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - The Slaughterhouse Cases
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof

After dismissing Judge Miller’s statement in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Wong Court turned to another case which they described as “the only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”  That case was the 1884 opinion given in Elk v. Wilkins.

Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment
The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - Sovereignty Over the Soil
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - British Citizenship
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Justice Story on Allegiance
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - The Claims of the Judicial Branch
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Rejection of Jus Sanguinis
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - The Slaughterhouse Cases

After presenting the history of citizenship in America and concluding from that history that America had always had a jus soli foundation for citizenship, the Court moved on to address the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which has been the focus of so many of our modern debates on birthright citizenship.  The Court began its consideration of this phrase with a look at an 1873 Supreme Court opinion known simply as The Slaughterhouse Cases.

Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment
The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - Sovereignty Over the Soil
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - British Citizenship
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Justice Story on Allegiance
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - The Claims of the Judicial Branch
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Rejection of Jus Sanguinis

The Latin phrase jus sanguinis means “the right of blood,” and it is used as a reference to the theory that children should inherit the citizenship status of their fathers regardless of the location of their birth.  The Wong Court considered this doctrine and rejected the claim that this view of citizenship was the foundational view of citizenship in America.

Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment
The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - Sovereignty Over the Soil
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - British Citizenship
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Justice Story on Allegiance
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - The Claims of the Judicial Branch

In continuing their review of the history of birthright citizenship in America, the Court also quoted from Justice Story’s landmark publication Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws Foreign and Domestic.  The quotation noted by the Court was:

Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment
The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - Sovereignty Over the Soil
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - British Citizenship
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Justice Story on Allegiance

After establishing that English common law granted birthright citizenship to all children born within the realm of the King of England, the Court reviewed the history of this practice in America.  They introduced this section of their opinion with the claim that:

Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment
The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - Sovereignty Over the Soil
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - British Citizenship

During the latter half of the 19th century, the Republican controlled congress passed several laws which were known collectively as the Chinese Exclusion Acts.  These acts were designed specifically to prevent Chinese laborers from entering the United States, and in August, 1895, Wong Kim Ark who had been born in America to Chinese parents was forbidden entry back into the United States.  The U.S. attorney claimed that Wong was not a citizen because he was born to parents who were subjects of Emperor of China.  Thus their child was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States even though he was born within the borders of America.   The Supreme Court stated the question to be decided as:

Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment
The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - Sovereignty Over the Soil

As the debate over this section of the proposed amendment drew to a close, Senator Hendricks asked if he could pose one more question to Sen. Trumbull.  Sen. Hendricks wanted to know if it was true that the government of the United States could choose at any time to govern the Indians by direct law thus bringing them under our jurisdiction.  This was a very insightful question, and the responses from Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard to this question solidified the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as a requirement for birthright citizenship.

Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment
The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction

Sen. Trumbull did not stop with just these few statements in his explanation for why the Indians were not within the jurisdiction of the United States, but his train of argument was interrupted by Senator Wade who asserted that certain Indians should be made citizens by the proposed amendment.  Sen. Trumbull actually agreed with Sen. Wade and explained that if some Indians were to buy land in Colorado, for example, and

Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment
The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction

Senator Howard’s proposal received two objections in the Senate debate.  First, Senator Doolittle asked if the proposed amendment would grant citizenship to the children of Indians.  Then, Senator Cowan asked if the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of undesirable foreigners.  We will consider the responses to both of these challenges beginning with the question about the amendment’s application to Indians.

Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment 

It was at this point in the citizenship debate that Sen. Howard offered his amendment to Section 1.  He proposed that an additional sentence be added to the section to clarify once and for all exactly which people could claim the rights which were guaranteed to citizens of the United States.  The amended section would read: