How Asian Americans Shaped the Definition of American Citizenship
- WULR Team
- Mar 21
- 4 min read
An analysis of how the Courts have defined race and its impact on American Citizenship
Published March 21st, 2026
Written by Kathy Bian
On January 20th, 2025, the Trump Administration released Executive Order (EO) 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” EO 14160 sought to limit birthright citizenship by excluding children born to parents who are non-U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. According to the White House official website, “The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’” The order’s implementation was halted by a preliminary injunction issued in Barbara v. Trump (D.N.H. 2025, decided 2025) but was overturned in Trump v. CASA. The implications of EO 14160 and the courts’ decisions are immense; not only has it created confusion for expecting parents and future immigrants wanting to start a life in the United States, but it has also created chaos for courts in interpreting executive power and responding to unprecedented actions. Indeed, there are disparate racial implications. According to the Library of Congress, approximately 1 million foreign nationals acquired lawful permanent resident status each year from 2014 to 2023. From 2010 to 2019, the top immigrant-origin countries were Mexico, China, and India. The underlying racism in determining who qualifies for citizenship has been longstanding, and birthright citizenship that many immigrant families rely on is attributed to pre-requisite cases that influenced how Asian Americans were deemed citizens or Americans.
The status quo understanding of race in America is that race is a social construct– race only exists because humans attribute meaning to skin color for the majority to maintain power over the minority. This wasn’t always the case in determining immigrant qualifications for citizenship. Biological, or scientific racism, according to Floya Anthias and Nira Yuval-Davis, is the pseudoscientific belief that race is “[an] immutable biological or physiognomic difference which may or may not be seen to be expressed mainly in culture or life-style but is always grounded on the separation of human populations by some notion of stock or collective heredity of traits.” The Johann-Friedrich-Blumenbach Institute of Zoology and Anthropology explains the five racial classifications based on skull anatomy and skin color: Oriental/Mongolian (yellow), American Indian (red), Caucasian (white), Malay (brown), and Ethiopian (black). This false belief of race justified the practice of slavery, colonization, and discrimination around the world, which had long-lasting hierarchical effects for people of color and minorities: if one wasn’t classified in the Caucasian race, they were considered inferior and subhuman.
Throughout the mid to late 17th century, the Supreme Court used the five racial classifications to determine which Asian immigrants qualified for citizenship. In People v. Hall (4 Cal. 399 1854, decided 1854). A white miner, George Hall, murdered a Chinese miner in California, with three Chinese men to witness. The key evidence that led to Hall’s conviction was the testimony of the three Chinese witnesses. Hall appealed his conviction, arguing that their testimonies were inadmissible, and the California Supreme Court agreed. Section 14 of California’s Criminal Proceedings Act had established that “no Black or Mulatto person, or Indian,” would be able to testify against a white man in court. The Court classified Chinese people under the Indian race because Christopher Columbus had thought he discovered the Indian people next to the “Islands of the Chinese Sea.” Because of this proximity, the Court had reason to classify the Chinese with the Indian race as a “same type of species.”
The foundation of the prerequisite cases is the Naturalization Act of 1790, which provided that any “free white person” may be admitted to be a citizen. Many petitioners argued that they were legally white and therefore qualified for citizenship. In re Ah Yup (1878) was the first case to deny citizenship to a Chinese man, as counsel for Ah Yup argued that the Mongolian race should be considered white. The federal court in California dismissed their argument with reference to pseudoscientific beliefs and popular belief about who is considered white, emphasizing that “Orientals” were unfit for American civic participation. The precedent from this case wasn’t equally applied for all Asian immigrants– many cases involving Indian applicants were unevenly ruled, where some were determined to be white and some were not (US v. Balsara and US v. Thind). US v. Wong Kim Ark (decided 1898) was a watershed moment for Asian American citizenship, as the case established the boundaries of jus soli, or birthright citizenship. The case made it clear that those born in the United States were automatically considered American citizens, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. However, this only selectively included US-born Asians and did not repeal the many naturalization restrictions for immigrants. The racial clause in the Naturalization Act remained the basis for naturalization inquiries until it was abolished by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
Trump’s new executive order has the power to redefine who is considered an American. Citizenship, and the idea of citizenship, has symbolic and substantial importance for the Asian immigrant community. It determines whether they can work in certain occupations, qualify for healthcare, and participate in American civic life. EO 14160 attempts to redefine who can be American, centered on ancient ideas of biological racism, eroding the credibility of many Asian nationals who have fought for the right to be an American. Race should not determine whether someone can be trusted, assimilated, or productive in American society.
Comments