Looming citizenship crisis faces AANHPI communities awaiting SCOTUS ruling

APIA VOTE

Asian Americans at the Supreme Court protest Donald Trump's attempt
to do away with birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment

With the United States' 250th anniversary approaching, birthright citizenship, a cornerstone of the Constitution, is in danger of being stripped away by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. 

If they rule to end this constitutional right the fallout will be catastrophic: a staggering 6.4 million children born in the United States, including could be stripped of legal status by 2050. 

Within the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) community, the impact is uniquely devastating. The number of undocumented Asian births is projected to experience a massive, five-fold explosion —driven by families who followed every rule on work and student visas, only to watch their US-born children rendered stateless or unauthorized.

After hearing arguments this Spring, SCOTUS is expected to issue their ruling as early as today (June 18) or later this month, just in time for July 4th.

Deciding who belongs

For generations, the rule of the land was simple and beautifully egalitarian: if you are born here, you are one of us. It didn’t matter where your parents came from, what language they spoke, or what their paperwork looked like. The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was built precisely to ensure that America could never again create a permanent, multi-generational underclass.

RELATED: ACLU gives strong defense of birthright citizenship

 Now, the conservative legal apparatus is attempting to rewrite that history. They argue that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" requires a child's parents to owe direct "political allegiance" to the United States—essentially engineering a system where citizenship is inherited by legal status rather than guaranteed by birthplace.

Defenders of the Constitution — led by civil rights champions like the American Civil Liberties Union — are hitting back with clear, historical substance. Anyone standing on U.S. soil is bound by US laws and subject to US jurisdiction. It is a standard we inherited from English common law and enshrined after the Civil War to permanently bury the racist legacy of the Dred Scott decision.

Looming crisis for the AANHPI community

This isn’t an abstract debate for law school textbooks; it is a direct threat to our families. While the largest absolute number of people affected would be Latino, recent research from Penn State University highlights a terrifying twist: Asians would see the sharpest relative growth in unauthorized births of any immigrant group.

• THE VISA TRAP: The policy uniquely penalizes Asian immigrants residing legally on temporary work (like H-1B) or student visas. Their children, born in American hospitals, would suddenly be denied a defined legal status.

• MATH OF EXCLUSION: The data projects a chilling 41 unauthorized births per 1,000 Asians without permanent legal status—a rate more than double the projected trajectory for Latino communities.

• AN INVISIBLE WALL: Families who have done everything "the right way" would find their American-born children barred from higher education, locked out of professional careers, and stripped of basic equality before the law.

The possible end to birthright citizenship would pose a steep relative risk to the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community. While Latinos face the largest raw numbers, AAPIs experience the highest relative impact. 

STOP AAPI HATE

A recent study by Stop AAPI Hate projects that if birthright citizenship ends, the number of Asian "unauthorized" births could increase five-fold, with a rate of 41 unauthorized births per 1,000 unauthorized Asian residents—more than double the rate for Latinos.

This disproportionate impact exists because the policy primarily targets not just undocumented immigrants, but also children of temporary visa holders (such as H-1B workers and international students), from countries like India, China, and the Philippines. In total, approximately 3.6 million Asian Americans—including those who are undocumented, seeking asylum, or on temporary work and student visas—live under the shadow of this legal battle.

Erasing our past

What makes this conservative push so bitter for our community is that we already fought this battle — and won it — over a century ago. In 1898, the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark explicitly settled this issue. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents. When the government tried to deny his re-entry to his own country, the Supreme Court ruled that his birth on US soil made him an unconditional citizen, regardless of his parents' status.

By entertaining executive actions to bypass the 14th Amendment, the current conservative-majority SCOTUS isn’t just looking at the future — they are trying to erase our past and at the same time, revive their pre-Civil Rights Act past. They are threatening to turn a system built on equality into a dangerous, two-tiered caste system.

As the high court deliberates, the core identity of what it means to be "Born in the USA" hanging in the balance. For millions of future AANHPI kids, the edge we are looking over has never been n steeper.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. If you find this perspective interesting, please repost.

A closer look: Cecilia Wang presented a "master class" in defense of birthright citizenship

Cecilia Wang emerges into prominence for her performance at SCOTUS.

During the high-stakes showdown at the Supreme Court on April 1, 2026, ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang didn't just show up to argue; she showed up to defend the very fabric of American identity. 

In the landmark case of Trump v. Barbara, Wang delivered a masterclass in constitutional law, standing firm against the administration’s attempt to dismantle birthright citizenship.

The energy in the chamber was electric as Wang anchored her argument in a simple, undeniable truth: the 14th Amendment means what it says. She told the justices that the American rule is clear — everyone born here is a citizen alike. It was a powerful opening that reminded the court that this principle was designed to be beyond the reach of any temporary political whim.

Wang clarified that this phrase in the 14th Amendment, based on English Common Law, applies to virtually everyone "born on US soil." She argued it excludes only a "closed set of exceptions," such as children of foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, who are subject to another sovereign's jurisdiction.

        RELATED: Justices skeptical on Trump regime's arguments

For Wang, this wasn't just a legal theory; as the daughter of immigrants from Taiwan  and a birthright citizen herself, her defense of the 14th Amendment carried a personal resonance that felt deeply authentic.

The legal battle centers on an executive order attempting to exclude children born in the US to certain non-citizen groups — including those who are here on special visas and DACA recipients — from automatic citizenship.

Wang’s performance was widely hailed by legal observers as a "masterclass" in constitutional law. Although well-known in legal circles, she is not one to grab the spotlight. From relative obscurity from her April 1 SCOTUS appearance, she emerges as a real heroic, brilliant figure. Her arguments focused on the bedrock principles of the 14th Amendment and the historical precedent that has defined American citizenship for over 150 years. 

“Cecillia Wang is one of the country’s great litigators, which is why she’s the ACLU’s top lawyer," said aid ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.

The reception from the bench suggests Wang’s strategy hit the mark. Even some of the conservative justices seemed skeptical of the government’s "quirky" legal theories. 

Chief Justice Roberts notably pushed back on the idea that modern issues like "birth tourism" should change how we interpret the Constitution. Meanwhile, Solicitor General D. John Sauer faced a frosty reception, with Justices Roberts and Gorsuch questioning the logic of the administration’s stance.

While Wang admitted she would be happy to win on statutory grounds, she made it clear that a firm constitutional ruling is what the country needs for long-term stability.

The legal community is buzzing, with many observers noting that the ACLU’s team made up of co-counsels from several justice advocates including the Asian Law Caucus, seems to have the upper hand, but that doesn't guarantee a win for the Constitution. The conservative majority of SCOTUS is infamous for ignoring legal precedents and siding with wishes of the Trump regime such as right for women to determine their health choices, affirmative action and the weakening of voting rights.

For now, we hold our breath as we wait until the end of June 2026 for the final word.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. 

Supreme Court questions Trump regime's arguments against 'birthright citizenship'

Hundreds of people demonstrated at the Supreme Court.

ANALYSIS

It was a scene unlike any in the 237-year history of the Supreme Court. On April 1, the high court heard arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case that could dismantle the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. But the real story wasn't just the law — it was the atmosphere.

In a move that sent shockwaves through the capital, Donald Trump personally attended the arguments. Sitting in the front row, his presence felt less like a show of interest and more like a physical weight on the proceedings. To many observers, it was a blatant attempt to intimidate the Justices on their own turf—a "hush" falling over the chamber as the Commander-in-Chief stared down the bench.

The plaintiffs

The plaintiffs in Trump v. Barbara are a nationwide class of children born on US soil to immigrant parents, represented by three named individuals — Barbara, Susan, and Mark — who are using pseudonyms to protect their identities. They are challenging a Trump administration executive order aimed at denying birthright citizenship.

• Barbara: A Honduran asylum applicant living in the US since 2024, who feared retaliation.
• Susan: A Taiwanese citizen residing in Utah who was on a student visa when her child was born in April 2025.
• Mark: A Brazilian applicant for permanent residence living in Florida whose wife is undocumented and gave birth to their son in March 2025.

General Counsel D. John Sauer led the charge for the Trump regime, arguing that birthright citizenship is a "gift" that has been misapplied. He contended that "subject to the jurisdiction" implies a "political allegiance" that children of undocumented immigrants simply don't possess.

Sauer’s argument hit a disastrous snag when Justice Sotomayor pressed him on how this "allegiance" test would apply to Native Americans. In a stunning gaffe, Sauer appeared to stumble over the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, momentarily suggesting that the citizenship of indigenous peoples might also be subject to federal "re-evaluation" under his new criteria. 

The courtroom went cold; it was a moment that laid bare the radical nature of the government's position. 

Cecilia Wang, representing the plaintiffs for the ACLU, wasn't deterred by the presidential glare. She grounded her argument in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark precedent and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

"The Constitution does not have an 'unless' clause for those the President finds inconvenient," Wang argued. Outside the court, she was even more blunt: "This isn’t just an attack on immigrants; it’s an attack on the very definition of what it means to be American. You cannot rewrite the 14th Amendment with a Sharpie."

Skeptical justices

Justices across the ideological spectrum, including the activist conservatives who have been accused of being a rubber stamp for Trump policies, appeared broadly skeptical of the administration’s position.

Chief Justice Roberts pushed back against the "new world" argument, noting that while the world may change, "we have the same Constitution."

When Sauer pointed out that the US is one of the few countries to have birthright citizenship, Justice Kavanaugh questioned “(why) we try to interpret American law with American precedent based on American history.” “[W]hy should we be thinking about,” he asked, the “many other countries in the world (that) don’t have this?”

Justice Sotomayor expressed concern over the potential for the order’s logic to be used retroactively in the future, despite current administration claims.

Neil Gorsuch expressed disdain for the government's reliance on "Roman law sources," which he noted were far removed from the 1868 intent of the 14th Amendment.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the feasibility of the order, asking how the government would adjudicate "intent to stay" at the time of birth, noting that such a standard could be difficult to apply even to U.S. citizens.

Justices across the political spectrum frequently emphasized the "plain meaning" of the Constitution, viewing the Citizenship Clause as straightforward and unequivocal.

After arguing in behalf of birthright citizenship, the ACLU's Ceclia Wang addressed the demonstrators outside the SCOTUS building.

Views from the edge

If you strip away the high-minded talk about "jurisdiction," the view from the edge is clear: this is about racial demographics, power, and the ballot box.

Look closer at the broader strategy. This isn't just about an obscure legal clause; it’s a foundational piece of a larger effort to reshape the American electorate thereby appeasing the White supremacists who form a vocal segment of Trump's followers. 

The math is simple:

New immigrants and their first-generation children have historically leaned Democratic. By challenging the citizenship of those born here, the Trump administration isn't just "securing the border"; they are effectively attempting to prune the future voter rolls before they even exist.

This fits a pattern we’ve seen with the push for citizenship questions on the census and tighter registration rules. If you can change who counts as a citizen, you change who gets to vote, how districts are drawn, and who holds power for the next fifty years.

By framing birthright citizenship as a "loophole," the administration is signaling that American identity is a privilege to be granted by the state, rather than a right guaranteed by the soil. We see this philosophy in action already: White South Africans are welcomed with open arms but those from so-called "S--thole countries," are being deported.

While the administration frames this as a "national security" necessity, the reality is a raw political calculation. They aren't just trying to stop people from coming in; they're trying to make sure that those who do stay never get a seat at the table.

As Trump exited the courtroom, the legal community was left to process a day where the line between executive power and judicial independence was stretched to its breaking point. The ruling is expected in late June or early July, just in time for the "American experiment" to celebrate its 250th birthday.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. 

Who is Cecilia Wang, the lawyer who will defend 'birthright citizenship' at the Supreme Court

Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and a second-generation American, will argue against Donald Trump's attempt to get rid of birthright citizenship in the landmark case, Trump v. Barbara, at the Supreme Court tomorrow (April 1).

“This is the case of the century — the stakes are unfathomably high. Can a president of the United States unilaterally end birthright citizenship by executive order — overriding more than 150 years of settled constitutional law, and redefining who is recognized as American at birth? Absolutely not,”said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.

“Cecillia Wang is one of the country’s great litigators, which is why she’s the ACLU’s top lawyer. She has decades of experience fighting government overreach, including two trial victories against Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s racial profiling and contempt of court. Now, she’s up against a more formidable adversary as this case is a linchpin to Donald Trump and Stephen Miller’s agenda.

        FYI: Go deeper into the arguments for birthright citizenship

"Our clients are in the best possible hands with Cecillia Wang and this incredible co-counsel team presenting arguments — they will do all it takes to make sure birthright citizenship remains a cornerstone of our democracy.”

Wang was born in Oregon, the daughter of immigrants from Taiwan.  Her own citizenship was made possible by the repeal of racially discriminatory immigration laws through the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, and by the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship guarantee. Those reforms grew directly out of the anti-slavery and civil rights movements and expanded who has citizenship and belonging in the United States.

The groups will argue that the administration’s assault on birthright citizenship — the legal principle guaranteed by the 14th Amendment that every baby born in the United States is a U.S. citizen — flouts the Constitution’s dictates, longstanding Supreme Court precedent, a statute passed by Congress, and fundamental American values.

“It’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of Asian Law Caucus, and co-counsel.

“Every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional. If implemented, this policy would force all parents — including U.S. citizens — to prove their immigration status just to get a birth certificate or Social Security number for their baby, inevitably leading to racial profiling based on names, appearance, or accent.”

Wang personal history as a second-generation Asian American which informs her advocacy.

Earlier in her 20-year career, Wang directed the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, which won cases involving immigration detention, racial profiling, and discriminatory state and federal immigration laws.

During the first Trump administration, she worked on successful challenges to the Muslim ban, family separation policies, and the attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. She also led successful litigation against former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” said Wang. “For over 150 years, it has been the law and our national tradition that everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen from birth. The federal courts have unanimously held that President Trump’s executive order is contrary to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and a law enacted by Congress. We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. 

Supreme Court to hear case questioning "birthright citizenship."

Hannah Lu in front the United States Supreme Court Building.

UPDATED: Earlier versions had an incorrect date for the hearing. April 1 is the correct day SCOTUS will hear the arguments for and against birthright citizenship.

Get ready, because the Supreme Court is about to dive into the ultimate constitutional cage match. On April 1, the nine Justices will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, the case that could officially end birthright citizenship as we know it.

Here’s the skinny: Day one of his second term, Trump signed an executive order saying, "If your parents aren't citizens or green card holders, you don’t get a US passport just for being born here." It’s been winding through the courts ever since, but now it’s hitting the big stage.

The daughter of immigrants from Taiwan, Cecilia Wang, the National Legal Director of the ACLU, is presenting the oral arguments to the Supreme Court on April 1 defending birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara. She is arguing on behalf of challengers, including the ACLU , Stop AAPI Hate, Asian Americans Advancing Justice and NAACP LDF,

As of March 30, 2026, every lower court that has considered challenges to President Trump's January 2025 executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship has ruled it unconstitutional. These courts have consistently found that the order violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. 

Key lower court rulings

1. US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit: A divided panel in Trump v. Washington ruled Trump's executive order invalid, stating it "contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment." ruling the 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark guarantee citizenship to almost everyone born on US soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status.

2. US District Court for the District of New Hampshire: Judge Joseph N. Laplante issued a preliminary injunction and provisionally certified a nationwide class of babies born on or after February 20, 2025, who would be denied citizenship under the order.
District Courts in Washington State and Maryland: Federal judges in these states also entered injunctions blocking the order early in the litigation process.

While lower courts have blocked the order on its merits, the Supreme Court tried to assuage Trump's anger by issuing a procedural ruling in June 2025 (Trump v. CASA, Inc.) that curtailed the use of "universal" or nationwide injunctions by district courts. This temporarily allowed the order to take effect in states that had not challenged it, but it did not address the constitutionality of the order itself.

This isn't just a legal tweak; it’s a full-on identity crisis for the country. If the Court sides with the administration, it rewrites the rules for millions of families. If they toss it, it’s a massive blow to the "America First" legal agenda.

The ACLU's Cecilia Wang will defend birthright citizenship in front of the Supreme Court.

Predicting SCOTUS

I've given up any hope that the six conservative justices will find a spine to make a ruling based on precedent and the Constitution instead of bending over backwards  and twisting rational thinking in order to give Trump what he wants.

However, while the 6-3 conservative majority has frequently backed the Trump administration's broad executive powers, their commitment to originalism and textualism — the idea that the law means exactly what it says — could actually be the administration's undoing here.

Lower court judges — including many Republican appointees—have uniformly blocked the order, calling it a direct violation of the 14th Amendment. If the conservative justices follow their own logic on "original meaning," the administration faces a very uphill battle to get five votes for a total reinterpretation of citizenship.

The conservative majority has handed Trump wins on deportations and ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS). However, those cases focused on statutes (laws passed by Congress) where the President has massive leeway.

The difference is that birthright citizenship is a Constitutional right. Overturning United States v. Wong Kim Ark would be a much heavier lift than just approving a new border policy.

View from the edge

If SCOTUS rules against birthright citizenship an estimated 255,000 children born in the U.S. each year could be denied citizenship if the order is upheld. Projections suggest this could add 4.8 million non-citizen children to the population by 2045.

Many Asian families arrive on professional visas and wait decades for green cards. Under this order, children born during that long wait could be rendered "stateless" or left in legal limbo, denied Social Security numbers and the basic "right to have rights." Immigrants with J-1 visas who have children born while working in the US as nurses, teachers, oil workers or crews of ships would be in the same predicament.

If a generation of our children is denied citizenship, they lose the right to vote and run for office. It’s a direct hit to the growing political power of the AAPI community.
Affected children could face "irreparable harm," including vulnerability to deportation, loss of access to critical health care and nutrition, and legal "statelessness."

SCOTUS is expected to rule on the case in June. The Supreme Court's decision will determine what the United States will be like on its 250th birthday. 

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. 

Judge blocks Trump's attempt to ignore the US Constitution and do away with birthright citizenship

ABC News graphic

The ACLU filed a lawsuit in behalf of children born in the United States.

A federal court has blocked Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship, a major component of his administration's anti-immigrant campaign that has been described as racist and un-American.

US District Judge Joseph Laplante, who was appointed by former President Bush, on Thursday blocked Donald Trump’s assault on birthright citizenship in a ruling that applies nationwide.

“Since the Supreme Court’s decision, parents have lived in fear and uncertainty, wondering whether they should give birth in a different state, whether their newborns would be subject to deportation, and what kind of future awaits their children,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of Asian Law Caucus.

“This court’s injunction protecting birthright citizenship for all affected children is a major victory for families across this country and for all Americans. This ruling reaffirms that constitutional rights cannot be stripped away by executive decree.”

The ruling in Barbara v. Donald J. Trump stems from a nationwide class-action lawsuit filed June 27, immediately after a Supreme Court ruling that potentially opened the door for partial enforcement of the executive order.

The Asian Law Caucus is part of the coalition of legal rights organizations that filed the suit, including the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, and Democracy Defenders Fund

The legal challenge was filed on behalf of a proposed class of babies subject to the executive order. It seeks to protect all impacted families in the country in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, which directed courts to consider narrowing nationwide protection that had been provided in the first round of challenges to the executive order attacking birthright citizenship.

In granting the request, the court provided for a 7-day delay so that the government — which argued to the Supreme Court that a nationwide class was the appropriate way to seek nationwide protection in the birthright cases — could nevertheless try to get the First Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the relief, if it decides to pursue that option. Even with a 7-day delay, the ruling will go into effect well before July 27, when partial implementation of the unconstitutional order might otherwise have begun.

Birthright citizenship is a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The language of the amendment is clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

As soon as Trump took office, one of his first actions was to issue an executive order challenging the 14th Amendment. Several courts have upheld birthright citizenship and issued injunctions against any actions the Trump administration might undertake against the courts' ruling.

RELATED:

• Chinese American case set precedent for birthright citizenship
• FilAm AG files suit against Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship

The Department of Justice, acting in behalf of Trump, went to the activist conservative US Supreme Court challenging the right of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. Last week, SCOTUS, ruled 6-3 along party lines agiainst the lower courts' ability to issue nationwide orders, saying the judges' injunctions would apply only the judges' jurisdictions, not nationally. In their ruling, the SCOTUS majority agreed with the DOJ attorneys who argued to the Supreme Court that a nationwide class was the appropriate way to seek nationwide protection in the birthright cases.

“I am appalled by the Supreme Court’s decision to let the Trump administration push forward with its unconstitutional attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship," Rep. Grace Meng, chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, said after the SCOTUS decision. "This reckless ruling opens the door to a future where states can decide who is an American citizen.

“The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil—a principle upheld by this very Court over a century ago. Instead of ruling on the merits of this case, the Court has chosen to undermine judges’ abilities to block the administration’s unlawful actions that will only lead to more chaos and division.

The SCOTUS ruling spurred legal advocates like the ACLU, Asian Law Caucus to rile class action suit with affected clients in every state in the Union, thus going around the Justices' ruling.

With the judge's decision, other lawsuits against Trump's order are amending their complaints into class action lawsuits.

“The Asian American community has been at the forefront of affirming birthright citizenship ever since the landmark case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark," stated a Asian Americans Advancing Justice. "Together with the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (WLC) and OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates (OCA), we have amended our own lawsuit challenging President Trump's executive order, OCA — Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio, to proceed as a class action."

“This ruling is a huge victory and will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the case. “We are fighting to ensure President Trump doesn’t trample on the citizenship rights of one single child.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge. Now on BlueSky.

 

California county rescinds ordinance limiting water for Asian American landowners

INSTAGRAM

 Asian Americans celebrated after Siskiyou County rescinded its water ordinances.

A rural northern California county has repealed two ordinances that restricted water use and delivery near predominantly Hmong communities, ostensibly to crack down on illegal marijuana farming. 

Two years after Siskiyou County enacted a series of targeted ordinances that deprived thousands of Hmong American, Chinese American, and other Asian American residents of basic water for survival, hygiene, and wildfire defense, community members secured an important milestone this week in their fight to build a home, live safely, and raise their families without fear of bigotry and racist persecution by local officials.

As of August 1, 2023, Siskiyou County has repealed two of its water ordinances that created a humanitarian crisis for Asian American residents, degraded their health, resulted in the loss of livestock and gardens, left people unable to fend off wildfires, and forced many to leave their homes.

The county also amended a third water ordinance to establish due process protections and limit violation fines that discouraged people from providing water.

All Siskiyou County residents, including those in Shasta Vista, Dorris, and Macdoel, can now lawfully bring water to their homes via trucks and purchase water for basic needs from neighboring large well owners.

“Today, we celebrate an important victory affirming our human right to water and our rights to live without oppressive fear and trauma, simply because of where we were born or what we look like.” said ”Siskiyou County resident Russell Mathis.

Lawsuits vs. SIskiyou

These measures came after a settlement in Lo v. Siskiyou County, led by 11 Siskiyou County residents who were denied basic water needs as part of the county’s well-documented campaign of harassment, discrimination, and racial profiling against Asian American community members.

A federal court ordered the county to stop enforcement of two water ordinances to prevent the “dehydration and de facto expulsion of a disfavored minority” in 2021. In 2022, the federal judge ruled against the county’s attempts to end this preliminary injunction, noting “the passage of time has erased neither the concerning language County officials used to describe their purposes nor the racial animosity Hmong people in Shasta Vista have faced.”

The Lo plaintiffs were represented by the law offices of Allison B. Margolin, PLC and Frank S. Moore, APC. The Asian Law Caucus and the ACLU of Northern California filed briefs in support of the Lo plaintiffs’ lawsuit, showing that Siskiyou County’s discriminatory practices extended beyond water, including racial profiling in traffic stops and the use of punitive liens.

In August 2022, Asian American community members filed a major class action lawsuit against Siskiyou County officials and the Siskiyou Sheriff’s Department for their sweeping racial persecution campaign. In this case, Chang v. Siskiyou County, community members and their attorneys at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Asian Law Caucus, and Covington & Burling LLP detailed how county officials restrict people’s right to water and execute unlawful traffic stops, search and seizure practices, and property liens in a blatant effort to isolate residents of Asian descent and drive them out of the region.

Just as community members led a settlement in Lo v. Siskiyou County to restore their right to water, community members leading the Chang v. Siskiyou County class action lawsuit are currently in settlement negotiations to resolve claims of racial discrimination.

“As the Asian American community in Siskiyou has grown, including more parents enrolling their kids in school, grandparents retiring to more rural areas that remind them of Laos, and families trying to be closer together, Siskiyou County and the Sheriff’s Department have gone to troubling lengths to push out the Asian American community, and community members are taking action to create a safe, inclusive place to live,” said John Do, senior staff attorney for the Racial & Economic Justice Program at the ACLU of Northern California.

The discriminatory practices came through acts of intimidation including unlawful traffic stops and illegal search and seizure practices.

In a county where US Census figures showed that Asian and Pacific Islanders adults made up only about 2.4% of the adult population, more than 28% of traffic stops conducted by sheriff’s deputies last year involved Asian American drivers, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs' lawyers said their investigation found that sheriff’s deputies stopped drivers of Asian descent at a rate of roughly 12 times greater than their proportion of the driving-age population, with Asian American drivers about 17 times more likely to be pulled over than a white individual.

The northern California county in the shadow of Mt. Shasta is home to fewer than 45,000 people, of whom 85% are white and 1.6% are Asian American, according to the 2020 Census. Many Asian American residents in Siskiyou County are Hmong and came to the US as refugees after fighting alongside the U.S. military in the Vietnam War. 

Marijuana growing

The county claimed the ordinances were necessary and primarily aimed at illegal marijuana agriculture. Growing cannabis has been legal in California since 2018, but Siskiyou’s regulations have made it nearly impossible to grow legally, according to Prism. The county does not classify marijuana-growing as an agricultural therefore criminalizing growing the plant.

However, many Hmong and Chinese community members, who are part of the county’s farming population, said the measures were largely enforced in Asian American areas, the lawsuits allege. 

“If the sheriff was really concerned about cannabis, there would be all kinds of enforcement going on throughout the county, and there’s very little in the non-Hmong areas,” said Glenn Katon, an attorney with Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus in an interview with Prism.

White people have grown cannabis in Siskiyou since at least the late ‘60s without much incident, according to Margiana Petersen-Rockney, who co-published ethnographic research on cannabis farmers in the county.

In the mid-2010s, Hmong Americans started to arrive. The cheap parcels of land and mountainous landscape drew many Hmong elders from the Hmong communities in Minnesota and Fresno, Calif. The mountains and rural setting reminded them of Laos and their agricultural roots.

The tension grew between the county and its newest residents when four officers from different agencies, including the sheriff's department, fired 60 shots and killed Soobleej Kaub Hawj, a local farmer, who was attempting to bring water to the area. Authorities say he brandished a gun.

“The county kept insisting the case was about cannabis,” the ACLU's Do told Prism. “(The county’s officials) spoke as if everyone was part of a violent drug cartel essentially, and I think that language is indicative of how they’ve been treated.”

Siskiyou County’s water ordinances is the latest example of a long history of racist water policies used to target Black, Latino, and other communities of color and uphold segregation in California, particularly in unincorporated communities in the San Joaquin Valley, and in other states across the country.

“Siskiyou County’s bigoted practices draw from a long history of US policies treating people of Asian descent as less than full Americans who ‘don’t belong’ in our country, picking and choosing who has the freedom to build better lives and live safely,” said Glenn Katon, litigation director for the Asian Law Caucus. 

After the ordinances were repealed last week, Siskiyou resident Matis said: “My neighbors and I have been forced to make impossible choices between bathing every week and providing water to our pets, livestock, and gardens. County officials said they wanted to ‘choke’ us out, and these water ordinances were one tool in a shameful playbook to push so many of us out of the neighborhoods we call home.” 

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow me at Threads.net/eduardodiok, @DioknoEd on Twitter or at the  blog Views From the Edge.

Lawsuit filed against Florida's anti-Chinese law

A lawsuit filed yesterday, May 22, against Florida's new questionable law restricting land purchases by Chinese citizens was not unexpected.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the law May 8 citing security concerns. “Florida is taking action to stand against the United States’ greatest geopolitical threat – the Chinese Communist party,” said DeSantis, who is expected to announce his candidacy for the GOP nomination for US President.

“Xenophobic policies and rhetoric toward China stoke racial bias,” said Bethany Li, AALDEF legal director. “We have repeatedly seen how policies in the name of national security have harmed Asian Americans — from immigration restrictions, to the WWII incarceration of Japanese Americans in camps, and post-9/11 surveillance. Failing to call out the discriminatory impacts means our community will continue to experience racism, violence, and the erosion of rights.”

The plaintiffs include Chinese Floridians Yifan Shen, Zhiming Xu, Xinxi Wang and Yongxin Liu, all citizens of China who are lawfully living in Florida. They are joined by Multi-Choice Realty, LLC, a state real estate brokerage firm with a large Chinese clientele.

FYI: Download a copy of the complaint in Shen v. Simpson here.

Filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida, the lawsuit alleges they "will be forced to cancel purchases of new homes, register their existing properties with the State under threat of severe penalties and face the loss of significant business."

The legislation, due to go into effect on July 1, unfairly restricts most Chinese citizens — and most citizens of Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Russia, and North Korea — from purchasing homes in the state. 

The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, DeHeng Law Offices PC, and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), in coordination with the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance (CALDA).

The lawsuit argues that SB 264 will codify and expand housing discrimination against people of Asian descent in violation of the Constitution and the Fair Housing Act. It will also cast an undue burden of suspicion on anyone seeking to buy property whose name sounds remotely Asian, Russian, Iranian, Cuban, Venezuelan, or Syrian. 

DeSantis has argued that this law is necessary to protect Florida from the Chinese Communist Party and its activities. But this misguided rationale unfairly equates Chinese people with the actions of their government, and there is no evidence of national security harm resulting from real estate ownership by Chinese people in Florida.

Florida’s dangerous new law recalls similar efforts over the past century to weaponize false claims of “national security” against Asian immigrants and other marginalized communities. In the early 1900s, politicians across the country used similar justifications to pass “alien land laws” prohibiting Chinese and Japanese immigrants from becoming landowners. 

These racist policies not only hurt immigrants financially, but also severely exacerbated violence and discrimination against Asian communities living in the United States. Over time, these laws were struck down by the courts or were repealed by state legislatures because they violated the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees.

“All Asian Americans will feel the stigma and the chilling effect created by this Florida law, just like the discriminatory laws did to our ancestors more than a hundred years ago,” said Clay Zhu, attorney with DeHeng Law Offices PC and co-founder of CALDA. “We shall not go back.”

Over a dozen state legislatures have recently introduced similar legislation, and many of these bills likewise target people from China. Florida’s bill was the first of this wave of legislation to be enacted into law.

“Asian immigrants are part of Florida’s fabric. For hundreds of years, they have contributed to our communities and have made this state their home,” said Daniel Tilley, legal director for the ACLU of Florida. “The discriminatory policies pushed by the DeSantis administration will not go unchecked. The Constitution protects us all.”

“Florida’s discriminatory property law is unfair, unjustified, and unconstitutional,” said Ashley Gorski, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “Everyone in the United States is entitled to equal protection under our laws, including citizens of other countries. If SB 264 goes into effect, it will profoundly harm our clients and countless other immigrants in Florida.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow @DioknoEd on Twitter or at his blog Views From the Edge.

Wrongfully accused Chinese researcher appeals his case against the FBI

 

ACLU / Hannah Beier

Professor Xiaoxing Xi and his wife outside the federal courthouse in Philadelphia, Sept. 14.

A Chinese scientist working in the US appeals his case asking for damages after the  Department of Justice's questionable China Initiative accused him of espionage, charges that were dismissed for lack of evidence.

In oral argumentsWednesday in Philadelphia at the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Temple University professor Dr. Xiaoxing Xi and his attorneys urged the court to reinstate his claims for damages against the US government for its discriminatory investigation and prosecution of baseless charges that were later dismissed.

Judges seemed persuaded that Dr. Xi and his family endured “malicious prosecution and fabrication” of evidence and expressed considerable skepticism with the Department of Justice’s arguments claiming immunity from accountability for constitutional violations.

FYI: Read case documents from Xi v. United States.

Across the country, civil rights advocates working in Asian, Black, Arab, Middle Eastern, and Muslim communities have united in support of Dr. Xi and his fight to hold the government accountable for its long legacy of targeting people on the basis of their race, national origin, religious identity, or ethnic background under the pretext of national security.

Advancing Justice - AAJC and Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus led an amicus brief supporting Dr. Xi and calling on the U.S. government to end its discriminatory targeting and racial profiling of Asian Americans and Asian immigrants.. The brief was co-signed by 72 Asian American organizations, civil rights groups, scientific associations, and academic groups.

In 2015, Dr. Xi was wrongfully accused of sharing sensitive technology with scientists in China, a charge for which he faced up to 80 years in prison and $1 million in fines. 

FBI agents entered Dr. Xi’s home with a battering ram, pointed guns at him, his wife, and two daughters, and arrested him. As Dr. Xi’s attorney argued, these actions had “devastating consequences” on him and his family, as Dr. Xi was branded a technological spy, suspended as physics chair at Temple University, and was forced to live with the specter of suspicion for years. Dr. Xi and his family have since been fighting for justice for seven years.

“We are at a juncture today for our communities to turn the tide and support Professor Xi’s efforts to ensure that the federal government is held accountable. Whether Professor Xi and his family are finally afforded justice after a seven year long legal battle will have a powerful ripple effect and signal to many others whether our country can change, take responsibility, and uphold justice,” said Gisela Perez Kusakawa, director of Anti-Racial Profiling for Asian Americans Advancing Justice.

Xi's case and others scientists, researchers and professors who were cleared after the DOJ accused them of spying and selling trade secrets that were later dismissed caused the Biden administration to scrap the Trump-instigated China Initiative earlier this year.

“The Third Circuit panel seemed to understand that the government’s constitutional violations of Dr. Xi’s rights cannot stand,” said Glenn Katon, the Litigation Director at Advancing Justice - ALC. “We are hopeful that the court will reverse the dismissal of Dr. Xi’s case, and that he and his family can proceed to prove how the FBI and DOJ’s fabrication of evidence and racial discrimination caused them grievous harms and restore Americans’ confidence that the government cannot violate our rights with impunity.”

It will take several months before the Third Circuit issues a ruling. No matter the outcome, if Xi's case is appealed by either side, it faces an uphill climb in the US Supreme Court, which has already ruled in several similar cases that the government could not be sued for wrongful arrests and detention.

The FBI refused to comment on this case.

“It’s not because the agent made a mistake or misunderstood something. He knew he was wrong. He knew I was innocent, and he went ahead,” Xi told WHYY.

“We’re determined to fight to the end, because we have to hold the government accountable when they violate the rights of innocent people. And next time, when they are trying to do something like that, they better think twice about the consequences.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow @DioknoEd on Twitter.