Trump thwarted, birthright citizenship upheld by Supreme Court

CHINATOWN / FACEBOOK

San Francisco's Chinatown unveiled its newest mural hooring Wong Kim Ark.

The historic 128-year-old legacy of a San Francisco Chinatown cook has been vindicated, as the US Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to reject a white nationalist-fueled executive order, firmly upholding constitutional birthright citizenship for all children born on American soil.

For Norman Wong and Sandra Wong, the great-grandchildren of civil rights icon Wong Kim Ark, the high court's decision was a moment of profound relief—and a stark reminder of the perpetual fight against the "forever foreigner" stereotype that still haunts Asian Americans.

The high-stakes legal battle erupted after Donald Trump tried to unilaterally dismantle the 14th Amendment. His executive order sought to strip automatic citizenship from children born in the US to temporary visitors and undocumented immigrants—a move that would have upended the lives of over 250,000 babies born each year.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts made it clear that a president cannot rewrite the Constitution by executive decree. The court squarely reaffirmed the very precedent established by the Wongs' ancestor in the landmark 1898 case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Trump vows to continue fight to restrict immigration

Celebrate while you can. Although the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, other crucial Supreme Court victories for the administration are adversely affecting millions of legal visa-holders from Asia, the country's fastest-growing immigrant group.

The fact that the SCOTUS ruling wasn't unanimous in what legal experts thought would be a slam-dunk gives the Trump regime an open door to achieve what his weaponized DOJ sought to do.

Trump criticized the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling striking down his executive order on birthright citizenship, calling the decision "too bad for our Country" but pivoting immediately to demand a legislative workaround through Congress.

In a series of posts on Truth Social, Trump expressed deep disappointment, stating that while the court upheld the policy, "we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation."

He urged Congress to begin drafting legislation "today" to dismantle birthright citizenship, labeling the practice "expensive and unfair to our country" and promising lawmakers his "Complete and Total Support!."

Though Trump lost his fight against the 14th Amendment's birthright protections, immigration experts warn that the cumulative effect of the other Supreme Court decisions will heavily disrupt the lives of millions of lawful visa holders and employment-based immigrants.

Trump achieved his broader agenda against immigrants of color through the following wins at the Supreme Court: 

• TPS Terminations: In Mullin v. Doe, the Court ruled 6-3 to bar judicial review of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) determinations. This greenlit the termination of TPS for Haiti and Syria, immediately placing roughly 350,000 work-authorized individuals at risk of deportation and the loss of their legal status. While the case specifically involved Haitian and Syrian immigrants, the ruling has broad implications for all immigrants, including those from Asia, such as Nepal, Burma (Myanmar) and Afghanistan.

• Asylum Restrictions: In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court determined that migrants attempting to seek asylum while standing outside the US border are not considered to have legally "arrived" in the country.

• Lawful Permanent Resident Admissibility: In Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, the Court ruled 6-3 that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can defer the inspection of Lawful Permanent Residents who committed crimes until after their conviction, making it significantly easier to deport green card holders.

View from the edge

Immigrants from Asia make up the fastest-growing minority and racial demographic in the US, and they are disproportionately affected by the broader shifting legal landscape. While ending birthright citizenship would have primarily affected the US-born children of undocumented Latinos, studies have shown that the fastest relative growth of "unauthorized" births would have occurred among Asian families who are lawfully in the US on student and work visas. Many Asian immigrants face massive green card backlogs — often stretching over a decade — and thus rely on these temporary, nonimmigrant statuses for long periods.

The original battle began when Wong Kim Ark, a cook born in San Francisco, traveled to China and was blocked from re-entering his own country by racist immigration officials wielding the Chinese Exclusion Act. He refused to back down, forcing the Supreme Court to declare in 1898 that birth on U.S. soil equals citizenship, period.

In a poetic twist of continuity, the case defending our foundational rights was argued before the high court by ACLU national director Cecillia Wang — an American-born daughter of Taiwanese immigrants. Norman Wong, a 76-year-old Bay Area resident and veteran activist of the 1970s Third World Liberation Front at UC Berkeley, noted how "sweet" it was to see a Chinese American woman who herself is a US citizen by virtue of birthright citizenship, leading the defense at the frontlines of anti-Asian discrimination.

Norman Wong spent the morning of the decision at his Bay Area home, eating a bowl of oatmeal and anxiously tracking the news. Speaking with AsAmNews, he emphasized that this wasn't just a win for one community.

“Today's ruling shows that his victory remains as important now as it was in 1898... We’re fighting for rights for all Americans because these are fundamental rights.”

His sister, Sandra Wong, expressed disbelief that they even had to fight this battle in 2026. "This is Wong Kim Ark's legacy," she stated. "It is our legacy."

Just weeks before this modern victory, a vibrant new mural honoring Wong Kim Ark was unveiled and blessed with a lion dance in San Francisco's Chinatown. It stands as a permanent reminder that Asian Americans have never been passive bystanders in the story of American democracy—we built the legal bedrock that protects everyone.

"His fight was not just his own, it was for me and for generations to come," Norman Wong said in an earlier speech at a rally outside the Supreme Court building. "This is Wong Kim Ark's legacy. This is my legacy. It is our legacy, and now it is our responsibility to protect it for our children and for generations yet to come."

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.

Green card holders need to take care when returning from abroad

Green card holders face heightened deportation and entry risks under aggressive immigration enforcement approved by the Trump regime's radical Supreme Court.

In a stinging 6-3 decision for Blanche v. Lau, the high court handed border agents the ultimate wildcard, effectively stripping lawful permanent residents of their presumption of innocence the moment they step off an international flight.

For decades, a green card meant safety, security, and a permanent home. But under this new reality, returning immigrants are being transformed into "applicants for admission" based on nothing more than unproven criminal allegations.

The SCOTUS ruled June 22 that border officials do not need "clear and convincing evidence" of a disqualifying crime before placing a returning green card holder on immigration parole or denying them entry. Instead, officers only require a "reason to believe" a crime may have occurred.

The clashing opinions from the Justices highlight a deeply fractured view on where executive power ends and individual due process begins.

The Dissent: A "Massive Blank Check"

Writing for the liberal minority, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—issued a blistering rebuke, accusing the majority of turning immigration law completely on its head.

Jackson warned that the decision hands the executive branch a "massive blank check" to bypass due process, weaponizing mere whispers and unproven allegations against people who have built lives in America. 

The dissent argued the ruling allows the government to treat a lawful resident as an applicant "seeking admission" based on unproven accusations, which strips the individual of their right to a formal removal process and traps them in "immigration limbo"

The dissent took aim at the majority's casual dismissal of "immigration parole," reminding the court that this isn't a harmless procedural pause. Being forced into parole means having your green card confiscated, your work permits frozen, and your access to housing and healthcare thrown into sudden, long-term chaos—all before a jury ever finds you guilty of a single thing.

Writing for the ultra-conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas focused heavily on the literal text of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), arguing that the law simply doesn't force border officers to meet a high evidentiary bar.

According to Thomas, demanding "clear and convincing evidence" at a chaotic port of entry is operationally unrealistic. In the eyes of the majority, border officials are paid to make quick judgments on the spot, and a pending charge or unresolved allegation is context enough to deny standard entry. Thomas even shrugged off the long-term risks, suggesting that if a traveler is eventually acquitted in criminal court, the government's deportation attempts will fail anyway—rendering the sudden loss of freedom a "justifiable precaution."

The case centered on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen and green card holder. Upon returning to the US from a trip abroad, immigration officials deemed him inadmissible because he was facing state charges for trademark counterfeiting, although he had not yet been convicted. He subsequently pleaded guilty and was ordered deported.

The fallout

While legal analysts note that immigrants with squeaky-clean records won't see an immediate shift in their daily commute, the psychological toll on the wider community is undeniable. By allowing the state to punish people before they are ever convicted of a crime, the Supreme Court has turned a routine trip abroad into a high-stakes gamble for millions of families across the country.

Immigration advocates are already sounding the alarm on what this means on the ground. Border officials no longer need to wait for a judge or a jury; a mere pending charge or a disgruntled accusation is enough to snatch away a traveler's standard re-entry and dump them into "immigration parole."

Green card holders will face additional scrutiny when returning from abroad.

Once trapped in this legal limbo, the fallout is immediate and devastating. Green card holders face losing their work permits, having their IDs confiscated, and being cut off from basic necessities like housing and health insurance while their lives stall in a backlogged immigration court system.

The SCOTUS ruling on green cards is in line with other recent decisions by the court's conservative majority allowing Trump and his supporters to make life miserable for immigrants and other communities of color including the aggressive deportation policy. The next major decision — the right of birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment which is the Trump DOJ wants to ban —is expected in the next few weeks.

For transnational Asian families, the fallout on the green card ruling is devastatingly practical. Stripping an immigrant's green card and replacing it with a paper stamp leaves them in a cruel legal limbo — unable to easily renew a driver's license, open a bank account, or keep a job while trapped for years in a broken, backlogged immigration court system.

The bottom line is if you are planning to travel to visit family in your home country or have business interests abroad, you should reconsider if you have any past arrests, convictions, or pending charges in the US or abroad? or if you have any prior immigration violations. Always speak with a qualified immigration attorney before traveling internationally if you have any pending charges, prior arrests, or past immigration violations.

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.